Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28212642›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2017

Beyond cultural stereotyping: views on end-of-life decision making among religious and secular persons in the USA, Germany, and Israel.

Mark Schweda, Silke Schicktanz, Aviad Raz, Anita Silvers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

4 authors.

Mark SchwedaDepartment of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medical Center Göttingen, Humboldtallee 36, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.
Silke SchicktanzDepartment of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medical Center Göttingen, Humboldtallee 36, 37073, Göttingen, Germany. silke.schicktanz@medizin.uni-goettingen.de.
Aviad RazDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er-Sheva, 84105, Israel.
Anita SilversDepartment of Philosophy, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA, 94132, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnd-of-life decision making constitutes a major challenge for bioethical deliberation and political governance in modern democracies: On the one hand, it touches upon fundamental convictions about life, death, and the human condition. On the other, it is deeply rooted in religious traditions and historical experiences and thus shows great socio-cultural diversity. The bioethical discussion of such cultural issues oscillates between liberal individualism and cultural stereotyping. Our paper confronts the bioethical expert discourse with public moral attitudes.

methodsThe paper is based on a qualitative study comprising 12 focus group discussions with religious and secular persons in the USA, Germany, and Israel (n = 82). Considering the respective socio-political and legal frameworks, the thematic analysis focuses on moral attitudes towards end-of-life decision making and explores the complex interplay between individual preferences, culture, and religion.

resultsOur findings draw attention to the variety and complexity of cultural and religious aspects of end-of-life decision making. Although there is local consensus that goes beyond radical individualism, positions are not neatly matched with national cultures or religious denominations. Instead, the relevance of the specific situatedness of religious beliefs and cultural communities becomes visible: Their status and role in individual situations, for example, as consensual or conflicting on the level of personal perspectives, family relationships, or broader social contexts, e.g., as a majority or minority culture within a political system.

conclusionsAs the group discussions indicate, there are no clear-cut positions anchored in "nationality," "culture," or "religion." Instead, attitudes are personally decided on as part of a negotiated context representing the political, social and existential situatedness of the individual. Therefore, more complex theoretical and practical approaches to cultural diversity have to be developed.

Indexed as

Attitude to DeathCultureEthnicityMoralsReligionDecision MakingEuthanasiaFemaleFocus GroupsGermanyHumansIsraelMaleQualitative ResearchReligion and MedicineSocial EnvironmentAdvance directivesAssisted suicideAttitudes toward deathCultural diversityEuthanasiaFocus groups

Identifiers

PMID28212642
PMCPMC5316158

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.