Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26757725›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2016

From Exceptional to Liminal Subjects: Reconciling Tensions in the Politics of Tuberculosis and Migration.

Jed Horner

Abstract readHistorical Article
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jed HornerAustralian Human Rights Centre, Faculty of Law, UNSW Australia, UNSW Law Building, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. jed.horner@unsw.edu.au.
UNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Controlling the movement of potentially infectious bodies has been central to Australian immigration law. Nowhere is this more evident than in relation to tuberculosis (TB), which is named as a ground for refusal of a visa in the Australian context. In this paper, I critically examine the "will to knowledge" that this gives rise to. Drawing on a critical analysis of texts, including interviews with migrants diagnosed with TB and healthcare professionals engaged in their care (n=19), I argue that this focus on border policing, rather than resettlement and the broader social determinants of health that drive current rates of TB, paradoxically renders migrants diagnosed with TB as liminal subjects in the post-arrival phase. This raises ethical issues about who "matters," as well as dilemmas about what constitutes adequate care for the "Other," both of which go to the heart of the political economy of migration.

Indexed as

Emigration and ImmigrationHealthcare DisparitiesPopulation SurveillanceSocial Determinants of HealthTransients and MigrantsAustraliaCommunicable Disease ControlCongresses as TopicEpidemicsHealth PolicyHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansNarrationPublic PolicyTuberculosisEquityHealth disparitiesMigrationSocial determinants of healthSurveillanceTuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID26757725
OpenAlexW2234819449

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.