Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30427291›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2018

Euthanasia and assisted dying: what is the current position and what are the key arguments informing the debate?

Andreas Fontalis, Efthymia Prousali, Kunal Kulkarni

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The Morality of Assisted Dying.The Journal of medicine and philosophy · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Andreas Fontalis1 St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London SW17 0QT, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5547-288X
Efthymia Prousali2 Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki Greece.
Kunal Kulkarni3 University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Infirmary Square, Leicester, LE1 5WW, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assisted dying is a highly controversial moral issue incorporating both physician-assisted dying (PAD) and voluntary active euthanasia. End-of-life practices are debated in many countries, with assisted dying receiving different consideration across various jurisdictions. In this paper, we provide an analytic framework of the current position and the main arguments related to the rights and moral principles concerning assisted dying. Assisted dying proponents focus on the respect of autonomy, self-determination and forestalling suffering. On the other hand, concerns are raised regarding the interpretation of the constitutional right to life and balancing this with the premise of assisted dying, alongside the impacts of assisted dying on the doctor-patient relationship, which is fundamentally based on trust, mutual respect and the premise of 'first do no harm'. Our review is underpinning the interpretation of constitutional rights and the Hippocratic Oath with the premise of assisted dying, alongside the impacts of assisted dying on the doctor-patient relationship. Most clinicians remain untrained in such decision making, with fears against crossing key ethical divides. Due to the increasing number of cases of assisted dying and lack of consensus, our review enables the integration of ethical and legal aspects and facilitates decision making.

Indexed as

Attitude to DeathCultureDissent and DisputesEuthanasia, ActiveHuman RightsPhysician-Patient RelationsSuicide, AssistedEthics, MedicalHumansLegislation, MedicalPalliative CarePersonal AutonomyTerminal CareAssisted dyingbioethicseuthanasiahealthcare ethicslegal framework

Identifiers

PMID30427291
PMCPMC6243437

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.