ArticleBioethics2016
In Favour of Medical Dissensus: Why We Should Agree to Disagree About End-of-Life Decisions.
Article in Bioethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dealing With Conflicts in Medical Decisions: Epistemic Reasonable Disagreement Between Parents and Medical Staff.Bioethics · 2026Article
- Parents Value Shared Decision-Making and Sensitive Communication During End-of-Life Care in Neonatal Intensive Care: An Exploratory Study.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2026Observational
- Development of a checklist for evaluation of shared decision-making in consultation for extremely preterm delivery.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Article
- Debate: Should Parents be able to Request Non-Resuscitation for All Extremely Premature Newborn Infants?Asian bioethics review · 2025Article
- Withdrawal and withholding of life sustaining treatment (WWLST): an under recognised factor in the morbidity or mortality of periviable infants?-a narrative review.Translational pediatrics · 2024Review
- End-of-life decision-making in the neonatal intensive care unit.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Review
- Inter-physician variability in strategies linked to treatment limitations after severe traumatic brain injury; proactivity or wait-and-see.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Assisted life termination and truth telling to terminally ill patients - a cross-sectional study of public opinions in Israel.Israel journal of health policy research · 2020Article
- Neurocritical care physicians' doubt about whether to withdraw life-sustaining treatment the first days after devastating brain injury: an interview study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2019Article
- Conscientious Non-objection in Intensive Care.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2017Article
- Dialogic Consensus In Clinical Decision-Making.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2016Article
- Which Lane Should We Be In?Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2016Article
- Review
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
End-of-life decision-making is controversial. There are different views about when it is appropriate to limit life-sustaining treatment, and about what palliative options are permissible. One approach to decisions of this nature sees consensus as crucial. Decisions to limit treatment are made only if all or a majority of caregivers agree. We argue, however, that it is a mistake to require professional consensus in end-of-life decisions. In the first part of the article we explore practical, ethical, and legal factors that support agreement. We analyse subjective and objective accounts of moral reasoning: accord is neither necessary nor sufficient for decisions. We propose an alternative norm for decisions - that of 'professional dissensus'. In the final part of the article we address the role of agreement in end-of-life policy. Such guidelines can ethically be based on dissensus rather than consensus. Disagreement is not always a bad thing.
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.