ReviewIranian journal of public health2014
Euthanasia: Murder or Not: A Comparative Approach.
Review in Iranian journal of public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Euthanasia - A Legal or Medical Issue: A Narrative Review.Iranian journal of public health · 2025Review
- Global Ethical Principles in Healthcare Networks, Including Debates on Euthanasia and Abortion.Cureus · 2024Review
- Article
- End-of-Life Practices in an Intensive Care Unit of a Private Hospital in Mexico.Palliative medicine reports · 2024Article
- Frames and counter-frames giving meaning to palliative care and euthanasia in the Netherlands.BMC palliative care · 2021Review
- Coronavirus (COVID-19) and Possibilities for Criminal Law Reaction in Europe: A Review.Iranian journal of public health · 2020Review
- Attitudes toward Euthanasia of Students of Law and Medicine in Serbia.Iranian journal of public health · 2020Article
- Physician-assisted Suicide in Serbia.Iranian journal of public health · 2018Article
- An Ethical Review of Euthanasia and Physician-assisted Suicide.Iranian journal of public health · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Euthanasia is one of the most intriguing ethical, medical and law issues that marked whole XX century and beginning of the XXI century, sharply dividing scientific and unscientific public to its supporters and opponents. It also appears as one of the points where all three major religions (Catholic, Orthodox, and Islamic) have the same view. They are strongly against legalizing mercy killing, emphasizing the holiness of life as a primary criterion by which the countries should start in their considerations. Studying criminal justice systems in the world, the authors concluded that the issue of deprivation of life from compassion is solved on three ways. On the first place, we have countries where euthanasia is murder like any other murder from the criminal codes. Second, the most numerous are states where euthanasia is murder committed under privilege circumstances. On the third place, in the Western Europe we have countries where euthanasia is a legal medical procedure, under requirements prescribed by the law. In this paper, authors have made a brief comparison of the solutions that exist in some Islamic countries, where euthanasia is a murder, with Western countries, where it represents completely decriminalized medical procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26056652PMC4441884What 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.