ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2019
On Replacement Body Parts.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sonographic characteristics of local soft tissue recurrence in primary bone tumor and diagnostic efficacy versus MRI.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- The ethics of explantation.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- To Your Good Health! Going to the Pub With Friends, Nursing Dying Patients, And 'ER' Receptionists: the Ubiquitous Rise of Risk Management and Maybe A 'Prudential' Bioethics?Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2019Article
- Current Status and Prospects of Clinical Treatment of Osteosarcoma.Technology in cancer research & treatmentReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Technological advances are making devices that functionally replace body parts-artificial organs and limbs-more widely used, and more capable of providing patients with lives that are close to "normal." Some of the ethical issues this is likely to raise relate to how such prostheses are conceptualized. Prostheses are ambiguous between being inanimate objects and sharing in the status of human bodies-which already have an ambiguous status, as both objects and subjects. At the same time, the possibility of replacing body parts with artificial objects puts pressure on the normative status typically accorded to human bodies, seemingly confirming that body parts are replaceable objects. The paper argues that bodies' normative status relies on the relation of a body to a person and shows that persons could have similar relations to prostheses. This suggests that in approaching ethical issues surrounding prostheses, it is appropriate to regard them as more like body parts than like objects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30565032What 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.