ArticleJournal of medical ethics2019
Temporising and respect for patient self-determination.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Encounters between people with mental health and/or substance use problems and ambulance clinicians: a qualitative interview study in Norway.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- In search of common ground - nephrologists' experiences in preparing and informing patients on the path to end-stage kidney disease.BMC nephrology · 2025Article
- The law on oncological oblivion in the Italian and European context: How to best uphold the cancer patients' rights to privacy and self-determination?Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2025Article
- Physician-Patient Relationship, Assisted Suicide and the Italian Constitutional Court.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2021Article
- Grounded theory qualitative approach from Foucault's ethical perspective: Deconstruction of patient self-determination in the clinical setting.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Review
- Factors influencing withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in patients with severe acquired brain injuries: a scoping review.Frontiers in neurologyReview
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
The principle of self-determination plays a crucial role in contemporary clinical ethics. Somewhat simplified, it states that it is ultimately the patient who should decide whether or not to accept suggested treatment or care. Although the principle is much discussed in the academic literature, one important aspect has been neglected, namely the fact that real-world decision making is temporally extended, in the sense that it generally takes some time from the point at which the physician (or other health care professional) determines that there is a decision to be made and that the patient is capable of making it, to the point at which the patient is actually asked for his or her view. This article asks under what circumstances, if any, temporising-waiting to pose a certain treatment question to a patient judged to have decision-making capacity-is compatible with the principle of self-determination.
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.