Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31712952›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2020

Dealing with death in cancer care: should the oncologist be an amicus mortis?

D Carrieri, F A Peccatori, L Grassi, G Boniolo

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

D CarrieriCollege of Medicine and Health & Wellcome Centre for Cultures and Environments of Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. d.carrieri@exeter.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3143-8430
F A PeccatoriEuropean School of Oncology & European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8227-8740
L GrassiInstitute of Psychiatry, Department of Biomedical and Specialty Surgical Sciences, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1050-4494
G BonioloDepartment of Biomedical and Specialty Surgical Sciences, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1968-4249

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The way death is (not) dealt with is one of the main determinants of the current crisis of cancer care. The tendency to avoid discussions about terminal prognoses and to create unrealistic expectations of fighting death is seriously harming patients, families and healthcare professionals, and the delivery of high-quality and equitable care. Drawing on different literature sources, we explore key dimensions of the taboo of death: medical, policy, cultural. We suggest that the oncologist, from a certain moment, could take on the role of amicus mortis, a classical figure in the past times, and thus accompanying patients towards the end of their life through palliation and linking them to psychosocial and ethical/existential resources. This presupposes the implementation of Supportive Care in Cancer and the ethical idea of relational autonomy based on understanding patients' needs considering their sociocultural contexts. It is also key to encourage public conversations beyond the area of medicine to re-integrate death into life.

Indexed as

CommunicationExistentialismHumansNeoplasmsOncologistsPalliative CareTerminal CareAmicus mortisDeathEnd of life careEthicsPsycho-oncologyRelational autonomySupportive Care in Cancer

Identifiers

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.