Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34294493›Full record

ArticlePatient education and counseling2021

Moral uncertainty: A case study of Covid-19.

Trisha Greenhalgh

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient education and counseling, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Southgate's sign.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Article
  3. Medical uncertainty: putting flesh on the bones.Patient education and counseling · 2021
    Article
  4. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Trisha GreenhalghDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Woodstock Rd, Oxford OX2 6TD, UK. Electronic address: trish.greenhalgh@phc.ox.ac.uk.
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust WT104830MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost writing about uncertainty in healthcare has addressed empirical uncertainty - that is, resulting from insufficient or conflicting facts.

objectiveTo consider moral uncertainty by exploring how different theories apply to a single clinical case.

methodIn this philosophical reflection, I briefly acknowledge empirical uncertainty before introducing and exploring the topic of moral uncertainty - defined as the question of what to do when we do not know what (morally) to do-using a case study of my own mother's deterioration and death from Covid-19.

resultsI identify and apply a number of philosophical theories relevant to managing moral uncertainty, including utilitarianism, deontology, practical rationality and feminist philosophy.

conclusionDifferent moral theories lead to different conclusions about the best course of action in situations of moral uncertainty. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Detailed analysis and close reading of a single case can provide insights into how to act in morally complex situations, but learning is in the form of enriched understanding, not formulaic rules.

Indexed as

COVID-19Ethical TheoryHumansMoralsSARS-CoV-2UncertaintyCovid-19Deontological ethicsFeminist philosophyMoral uncertaintyPractical ethicsUtilitarian ethics

Identifiers

PMID34294493
PMCPMC8603248
OpenAlexW3186323765

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.