ArticleBMC medical ethics2017
Beyond cultural stereotyping: views on end-of-life decision making among religious and secular persons in the USA, Germany, and Israel.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The involvement of family in the Dutch practice of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide: a systematic mixed studies review.BMC medical ethics · 2019Pooled it
- Diversity and Access to Palliative Care and Medical Assistance in Dying in an Urban Setting.Omega · 2026Article
- End-of-Life Cancer Care Interventions for Racially and Ethnically Diverse Populations in the USA: A Scoping Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- End of life care preferences in the Arab population in Israel- bridging the gap between unfounded assumptions and autonomous wishes.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Attitudes to End-of-Life Care and Voluntary Assisted Dying Amongst Members of the Australian Jewish community.Journal of religion and health · 2025Article
- To treat or not to treat? Oncologists' perceptions and experiences regarding overtreatment in end stage cancer patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Does the role of family meetings important at the end-of-life? A retrospective national study in Taiwan.BMC palliative care · 2024Observational
- Views, attitudes, and reported practices of nephrology nurses regarding shared decision-making in end-of-life care.Nursing ethics · 2024Article
- A bioethical perspective on the meanings behind a wish to hasten death: a meta-ethnographic review.BMC medical ethics · 2024Review
- "They choke to death in front of your very eyes": nurses' lived experiences and perspectives on end-of-life care during COVID-19.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- Suicide assistance in Germany: A protocol for a multi-perspective qualitative study to explore the current practice.PloS one · 2024Observational
- The impact of religion on changes in end-of-life practices in European intensive care units: a comparative analysis over 16 years.Intensive care medicine · 2023Article
- The impacts of the scope of benefits expansion on hospice care among adult decedents: a nationwide longitudinal observational study.BMC palliative care · 2023Observational
- Travelling to die: views, attitudes and end-of-life preferences of Israeli considering receiving aid-in-dying in Switzerland.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- The Role of Worldview in Moral Case Deliberation: Visions and Experiences of Group Facilitators.Journal of religion and health · 2021Article
- [Overtreatment in intensive care medicine-recognition, designation, and avoidance : Position paper of the Ethics Section of the DIVI and the Ethics section of the DGIIN].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.