Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32964352›Full record

ReviewJournal of bioethical inquiry2020

Balancing Patient and Societal Interests in Decisions About Potentially Life-Sustaining Treatment : An Australian Policy Analysis.

Eliana Close, Ben P White, Lindy Willmott

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Management of potentially inappropriate life-sustaining therapies: a survey of Quebec intensivists.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2026
    Article
  2. No Man (or Woman) Is an Island?Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2020
    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.

Eliana CloseAustralian Centre for Health Law Research, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George St, Brisbane, Queensland, 4000, Australia. eliana.close@qut.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7359-3375
Ben P WhiteAustralian Centre for Health Law Research, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George St, Brisbane, Queensland, 4000, Australia.
Lindy WillmottAustralian Centre for Health Law Research, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George St, Brisbane, Queensland, 4000, Australia.

Funding

Centre of Research Excellence in End of Life Care, National Health and Medical Research Council Top-Up ScholarshipDepartment of Education, Australian Government (AU) Postgraduate Research Training Program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis paper investigates the content of Australian policies that address withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment to analyse the guidance they provide to doctors about the allocation of resources.

methodsAll publicly available non-institutional policies on withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment were identified, including codes of conduct and government and professional organization guidelines. The policies that referred to resource allocation were isolated and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis. Eight Australian policies addressed both withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment and resource allocation.

resultsFour resource-related themes were identified: (1) doctors' ethical duties to consider resource allocation; (2) balancing ethical obligations to patient and society; (3) fair process and transparent resource allocation; and (4) legal guidance on distributive justice as a rationale to limit life-sustaining treatment.

conclusionOf the policies that addressed resource allocation, this review found broad agreement about the existence of doctors' duties to consider the stewardship of scarce resources in decision-making. However, there was disparity in the guidance about how to reconcile competing duties to patient and society. There is a need to better address the difficult and confronting issue of the role of scarce resources in decisions about life-sustaining treatment.

Indexed as

Resource AllocationWithholding TreatmentAustraliaDecision MakingHealth PolicyHumansMoral ObligationsPolicy MakingClinical decision-makingEnd-of-life careHealthcare rationingMedical futilityResource allocation

Identifiers

PMID32964352

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.