ArticleNursing ethics2019
The value of metaphorical reasoning in bioethics: An empirical-ethical study.
Article in Nursing ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recommendations for the diagnosis and management of cln3 disease (batten disease) using the Delphi consensus methodology.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Guideline
- Happiness in Hospice Care in The Netherlands: A Case Study Design.Journal of religion and health · 2024Article
- Acceptable objectives of empirical research in bioethics: a qualitative exploration of researchers' views.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Towards Understanding Behaviour and Emotions of Children with CLN3 Disease (Batten Disease): Patterns, Problems and Support for Child and Family.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- One Word to Describe My Experience as a COVID-19 Survivor Six Months after Its Onset: Findings of a Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background: Metaphors are often used within the context of ethics and healthcare but have hardly been explored in relation to moral reasoning.
objective: To describe a central set of metaphors in one case and to explore their contribution to moral reasoning.
method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 parents of a child suffering from the neurodegenerative disease CLN3. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and metaphors were analyzed. The researchers wrote memos and discussed about their analyses until they reached consensus. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS:: Participants gave oral and written consent and their confidentiality and anonymity were respected.
findings: A central set of metaphors referred to the semantic field of the hands and arms and consisted of two central metaphors that existed in a dialectical relationship: grasping versus letting go. Participants used these metaphors to describe their child's experiences, who had to "let go" of abilities, while "clinging" to structures and the relationship with their parent(s). They also used it to describe their own experiences: participants tried to "grab" the good moments with their child and had to "let go" of their child when (s)he approached death. Participants, in addition, "held" onto caring for their child while being confronted with the necessity to "let go" of this care, leaving it to professional caregivers. DISCUSSION:: The ethical analysis of the findings shows that thinking in terms of the dialectical relationship between "grasping" and "letting go" helps professional caregivers to critically think about images of good care for children with CLN3. It also helps them to bear witness to the vulnerable, dependent, and embodied nature of the moral self of children with CLN3 and their parents.
conclusion: Metaphorical reasoning may support the inclusion of marginalized perspectives in moral reasoning. Future studies should further explore the contribution of metaphorical reasoning to moral reasoning in other cases.
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.