Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31832972›Full record

ArticleMonash bioethics review2020

Infection control for third-party benefit: lessons from criminal justice.

Thomas Douglas

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Monash bioethics review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

1 author.

Thomas DouglasFaculty of Philosophy, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Suite 8, Littlegate House, 16-17 St Ebbes Street, Oxford, OX1 1PT, United Kingdom. thomas.douglas@philosophy.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6788-3608

Funding

Wellcome Trust 100705Wellcome Trust 100705/Z/12/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article considers what can be learned regarding the ethical acceptability of intrusive interventions intended to halt the spread of infectious disease ('Infection Control' measures) from existing ethical discussion of intrusive interventions used to prevent criminal conduct ('Crime Control' measures). The main body of the article identifies and briefly describes six objections that have been advanced against Crime Control, and considers how these might apply to Infection Control. The final section then draws out some more general lessons from the foregoing analysis for the ethical acceptability of different kinds of Infection Control.

Indexed as

Ethical AnalysisCommunicable Disease ControlCrimeCriminal LawDisease Transmission, InfectiousHumansPublic HealthCriminal justice ethicsInfectious diseasePreventive detentionPublic health ethicsQuarantineVaccination

Identifiers

PMID31832972
PMCPMC7749867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.