ArticleThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB2015
Collectivizing rescue obligations in bioethics.
Article in The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Providing Ancillary Care in Clinical Research: A Case of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma during a Malaria Vaccine Trial in Equatorial Guinea.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2020Article
- Shifting Duties of Children's Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of hospital medicine · 2020Review
- Why genomics researchers are sometimes morally required to hunt for secondary findings.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- The value of bioethical research: A qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements.PloS one · 2019Article
- Research use of electronic health records: patients' perspectives on contact by researchers.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Article
- Incidental Findings in Low-Resource Settings.The Hastings Center report · 2018Article
- Whole-Genome Sequencing and Disability in the NICU: Exploring Practical and Ethical Challenges.Pediatrics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Bioethicists invoke a duty to rescue in a wide range of cases. Indeed, arguably, there exists an entire medical paradigm whereby vast numbers of medical encounters are treated as rescue cases. The intuitive power of the rescue paradigm is considerable, but much of this power stems from the problematic way that rescue cases are conceptualized-namely, as random, unanticipated, unavoidable, interpersonal events for which context is irrelevant and beneficence is the paramount value. In this article, I critique the basic assumptions of the rescue paradigm, reframe the ethical landscape in which rescue obligations are understood, and defend the necessity and value of a wider social and institutional view. Along the way, I move back and forth between ethical theory and a concrete case where the duty to rescue has been problematically applied: the purported duty to regularly return incidental findings and individual research results in genomic and genetic research.
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.