ArticleNeuroethics2014
Attitudes of Lay People to Withdrawal of Treatment in Brain Damaged Patients.
Article in Neuroethics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mapping of Crowdsourcing in Health: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Pooled it
- Public and Clinician Perspectives on Ventilator Withdrawal in Vegetative State Following Severe Acute Brain Injury: A Vignette Survey.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- Use of Prognostication Instruments in Prognostication Procedures of Postanoxic Coma Patients over Time: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Understanding, detecting, and stimulating consciousness recovery in the ICU.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Review
- Citizen attitudes to non-treatment decision making: a Norwegian survey.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Prognostication, Ethical Issues, and Palliative Care in Disorders of Consciousness.Neurologic clinics · 2022Review
- Residual Cognitive Capacities in Patients With Cognitive Motor Dissociation, and Their Implications for Well-Being.The Journal of medicine and philosophy · 2021Article
- Worth living or worth dying? The views of the general public about allowing disabled children to die.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- Current controversies and irresolvable disagreement: the case of Vincent Lambert and the role of 'dissensus'.Journal of medical ethics · 2019Article
- Patient values informing medical treatment: a pilot community and advance care planning survey.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2019Article
- Public perception of the vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome: a crowdsourced study.PeerJ · 2019Article
- In Favour of Medical Dissensus: Why We Should Agree to Disagree About End-of-Life Decisions.Bioethics · 2016Article
- Should patients in a persistent vegetative state be allowed to die? Guidelines for a new standard of care in Australian hospitals.Monash bioethics reviewArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhether patients in the vegetative state (VS), minimally conscious state (MCS) or the clinically related locked-in syndrome (LIS) should be kept alive is a matter of intense controversy. This study aimed to examine the moral attitudes of lay people to these questions, and the values and other factors that underlie these attitudes.
methodOne hundred ninety-nine US residents completed a survey using the online platform Mechanical Turk, comprising demographic questions, agreement with treatment withdrawal from each of the conditions, agreement with a series of ethical principles and three personality tests.
resultsMore supported treatment withdrawal from VS (40.2 % agreed, 17.6 % disagreed) than MCS (20.6 %, 41.2 %) or LIS (25.3 %, 35.8 %). Agreement with treatment withdrawal was negatively correlated with religiosity (
conclusionLay attitudes to withdrawal of treatment in brain damaged patients are largely shaped by values similar to those central to the secular ethical debate. Neither traditional values such as the sanctity of life nor utilitarian values relating to resource allocation seem to play a central role. Far greater weight is given to autonomy, which may explain why participants were far more willing to endorse withdrawal of treatment when the issue was presented in the first person, or in relation to a concrete case involving a patient's explicit wishes. Surveys focusing on abstract cases presented in the third person may not provide an accurate picture of lay attitudes to these critical ethical questions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.