Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35752782›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2022

On the person in personal health responsibility.

Joar Røkke Fystro, Bjørn Hofmann, Eli Feiring

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Joar Røkke FystroDepartment of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. j.r.fystro@medisin.uio.no.ORCID 0000-0001-5234-9851
Bjørn HofmannDepartment of Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Gjøvik, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-6709-4265
Eli FeiringDepartment of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-5280-1051

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we start by comparing the two agents, Ann and Bob, who are involved in two car crashes. Whereas Ann crashes her car through no fault of her own, Bob crashes as a result of reckless driving. Unlike Ann, Bob is held criminally responsible, and the insurance company refuses to cover the car's damages. Nonetheless, Ann and Bob both receive emergency hospital treatment that a third party covers, regardless of any assessment of personal responsibility. What warrants such apparent exceptionalism with respect to personal responsibility in the healthcare context? We turn our attention to an understudied aspect of the debate on personal health responsibility, namely, the conceptualisation of the person in need of emergency hospital treatment. Drawing on the research of Joshua Knobe and Shaun Nichols, we propose that a context-dependent conceptualisation of the person may help explain a reluctance to ascribe responsibility to the individual for negative health outcomes.

Indexed as

Personal AutonomySocial ResponsibilityHumansMoral ObligationsBioethicsHealth prioritiesHealth responsibilityInsuranceLegal responsibilityMedical ethicsMoral responsibilityPersonPersonal responsibilityPersonhood

Identifiers

PMID35752782
PMCPMC9233776

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.