ArticleActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2018
Thomas Percival. Discussing the foundation of Medical Ethics.
Article in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global trends in surgical ethics research: a bibliometric analysis.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- A Scoping Review of Comparative Healthcare Codes of Ethics Studies.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- Prominent Literature in Surgical Ethics: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 50 Most-Cited Articles.Cureus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and aim of the workIn 1803, the English physician Thomas Percival published Medical Ethics, a work destined to become a milestone in the development of modern codes of medical ethics, starting from the first edition of the American Medical Association's ethical code. Notwithstanding the undeniable influence that this book has exerted upon the codification of the principles of medical ethics, researchers and experts foster different and opposing points of views on its real nature. They question whether Medical Ethics truly belongs to the literary genre of codes of medical ethics or, better yet, to that of medical etiquettes.
methodsThis debate is crucial in the field both of medical history and of medical ethics, with regard not only to Percival's work, but also to the ethical value of the current codes of medical ethics and deontology.
resultsThe lack of a rigorous philosophical-moral analysis of the current medical codification is reflected in its mere loyalty to the legal regulation, in substantial continuity with the past. However, the constant challenges proposed by the biomedical development, require the need to rethink the traditional conceptual tools of the current codes of medical ethics, with the purpose to achieve new schemes and innovative solutions.
conclusionsOn this perspective, when the codes of medical ethics are worked out by physicians, they could be considered as wrongly titled medical etiquettes. This consideration could regard current codes of medical ethics, that remain faithful to tradition and that would more probably be codes of medical etiquette with a wrong title.
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.