Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26744334›Full record

ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2016

Bioethics as a Governance Practice.

Jonathan Montgomery

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Identifying and Classifying Tools for Health Policy Ethics Review: A Systematic Search and Review.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. A survey of national ethics and bioethics committees.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Jonathan MontgomeryUniversity College London, ULC Laws, Bentham House, Endsleigh Gardens, London, WC1H 0EG, UK. Jonathan.Montgomery@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4592-0930

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bioethics can be considered as a topic, an academic discipline (or combination of disciplines), a field of study, an enterprise in persuasion. The historical specificity of the forms bioethics takes is significant, and raises questions about some of these approaches. Bioethics can also be considered as a governance practice, with distinctive institutions and structures. The forms this practice takes are also to a degree country specific, as the paper illustrates by drawing on the author's UK experience. However, the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics can provide a starting point for comparisons provided that this does not exclude sensitivity to the socio-political context. Bioethics governance practices are explained by various legitimating narratives. These include response to scandal, the need to restrain irresponsible science, the accommodation of pluralist views, and the resistance to the relativist idea that all opinions count equally in bioethics. Each approach raises interesting questions and shows that bioethics should be studied as a governance practice as a complement to other approaches.

Indexed as

BioethicsClinical GovernanceHuman RightsHumansInternational CooperationUnited KingdomUnited NationsBioethicsEthics committeesGovernanceLegitimationUK BioethicsUNESCO Declaration

Identifiers

PMID26744334
PMCPMC4754320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.