Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27934575›Full record

ArticleCambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees2017

Refusing to Treat Sexual Dysfunction in Sex Offenders.

Thomas Douglas

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 81% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Thomas Douglas

Funding

Wellcome Trust 100705
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article examines one kind of conscientious refusal: the refusal of healthcare professionals to treat sexual dysfunction in individuals with a history of sexual offending. According to what I call the orthodoxy, such refusal is invariably impermissible, whereas at least one other kind of conscientious refusal-refusal to offer abortion services-is not. I seek to put pressure on the orthodoxy by (1) motivating the view that either both kinds of conscientious refusal are permissible or neither is, and (2) critiquing two attempts to buttress it.

Indexed as

ConscienceCriminalsSex OffensesAbortion, InducedHealth PersonnelHumansRefusal to TreatSexual Dysfunction, Physiologicalagent-relativitycomplicityconscientious objectionconscientious refusaldiscriminationindirect discriminationsex offenderssexual dysfunctionstatistical discriminationtestosterone therapytreatment refusal

Identifiers

PMID27934575
PMCPMC5197922
OpenAlexW2560841211

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.