Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26671961›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of medicine and philosophy2016

Physicians' Professionally Responsible Power: A Core Concept of Clinical Ethics.

Laurence B McCullough

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of medicine and philosophy, 2016. 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Physician-Delivered Pain Neuroscience Education for Opioid Tapering: A Case Report.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Laurence B McCulloughBaylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA Laurence.McCullough@bcm.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The gathering of power unto themselves by physicians, a process supported by evidence-based practice, clinical guidelines, licensure, organizational culture, and other social factors, makes the ethics of power--the legitimation of physicians' power--a core concept of clinical ethics. In the absence of legitimation, the physician's power over patients becomes problematic, even predatory. As has occurred in previous issues of the Journal, the papers in the 2016 clinical ethics issue bear on the professionally responsible deployment of power by physicians. This introduction explores themes of physicians' power in papers from an international group of authors who address autonomy and trust, the virtues of perinatal hospice, conjoined twins in ethics and law, addiction and autonomy in clinical research on addicting substances, euthanasia of patients with dementia in Belgium, and a pragmatic approach to clinical futility.

Indexed as

Ethics, MedicalPower, PsychologicalDecision MakingDementiaEuthanasiaHospice CareHumansMoral ObligationsPerinatal DeathPhilosophy, MedicalPhysician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansSubstance-Related DisordersTrustTwins, Conjoinedclinical ethicspowerprofessional responsibility

Identifiers

PMID26671961
PMCPMC4882629

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.