Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23342402›Full record

ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2012

Misguided presumptions: British Medical Association (BMA) and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance on organ retrieval and 'opt out' or 'presumed consent'.

Fiona Randall, Robin Downie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. A difficult dilemma.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2012
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Fiona RandallIsle of Wight NHS Trust. fiona.randall@iow.nhs.uk
Robin Downie

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three documents have been produced in an attempt to increase the number of organs available for transplant: a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical guideline, a British Medical Association (BMA) report and a Welsh Government white paper. All three are ethically flawed: NICE and the BMA recommend that whenever there is intention to withdraw life-sustaining treatment and death is expected, patients should instead be stabilised to assess for donation. This is contrary to patients' best interests, the principles of mental capacity legislation and current criteria for accessing intensive care units. Regarding consent, the BMA and Welsh Government recommend an 'opt-out' policy, but consent in law requires information and cannot be 'presumed' or 'deemed' on the basis of failure to express or register 'opting out'. The language of all three proposals is manipulative, and patient trust may be undermined because the doctor's attention must move from the interests of the patient to those of the unknown organ recipients.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicSocieties, MedicalState MedicineHealth PolicyHumansPresumed ConsentTissue and Organ HarvestingUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID23342402
PMCPMC5922588

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.