Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18923128›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of public health2008

Dual loyalty of physicians in the military and in civilian life.

Solomon R Benatar, Ross E G Upshur

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of public health, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Physician involvement in torture: an ethical perspective.The Journal of medical humanities · 2013
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Solomon R BenatarJoint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ross E G Upshur

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The concept of the dual loyalty physicians may have to both a patient and a third party is important in elucidating the obligations of physicians. The extent to which loyalty may be deflected from a patient to a third party (e.g., an insurance company or a prison commander) is greatly underestimated and has not attracted significant scholarly analysis. We examined dual loyalty in civilian and military contexts and used the principles of public health ethics to construct a framework for determining the legitimacy of physicians' obligations. We illustrate the application of these principles to problems physicians encounter regarding communicable diseases, elder abuse, and driving fitness. In the complex military context, independent ethics tribunals should be created to adjudicate loyalty conflicts.

Indexed as

Conflict, PsychologicalPatient AdvocacyPhysician's RoleConfidentialityDissent and DisputesDomestic ViolenceEthical TheoryEthics CommitteesHumansMandatory ReportingMilitary MedicinePersonnel LoyaltyPhysician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansPrinciple-Based EthicsProfessional Competence

Identifiers

PMID18923128
PMCPMC2636540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.