Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21698434›Full record

ReviewSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2011

[Limits of pain treatment: medical and judicial aspects].

M Zenz, R Rissing-van Saan

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

M ZenzRuhr-Universität Bochum. zenz@anaesthesia.de
R Rissing-van Saan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medical principles of pain treatment are generally in line with the judicial principles. To relieve pain is one of the fundamentals of medicine and this has also been acknowledged by the Federal Court in Germany. It is criminal bodily harm, when a physician denies a possible pain treatment. Whereas courts clearly see an obligation to basic and continuing education in pain diagnosis and therapy, pain is still not represented in the German licensing regulations for physicians. Only palliative medicine has been added to the obligatory curriculum. Very similar pain is not mandatory in many clinical disciplines leaving physicians without the needed knowledge to treat pain. The need for interdisciplinary treatment is not yet acknowledged sufficiently, although meanwhile chronic pain is regarded as a bio-psycho-social illness.Since 2009 the advance directive is regulated by law. However, still many physicians are unaware that not only the position of the patient but also of the relatives have been strengthened. In 2010 the Federal Court has pronounced a judgment allowing "passive euthanasia" in certain conditions but prohibiting any active handling even in line with the patient's will. This is also in line with the European Human Rights Convention. The judicial unpunished assisted suicide has provoked an ethical discussion within the medical profession. However, what is not illegal is not automatically accepted as ethical handling for physicians. Palliative medicine is at least one alternative in this discussion.

Indexed as

Advance DirectivesCooperative BehaviorDose-Response Relationship, DrugEthics, MedicalEuthanasia, PassiveExpert TestimonyGermanyHumansInformed ConsentInterdisciplinary CommunicationMalpracticeMedical FutilityNarcoticsNeoplasmsPain ManagementPalliative CareNarcotics

Identifiers

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.