Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35967089›Full record

ArticleEthik in der Medizin : Organ der Akademie fur Ethik in der Medizin2022

[Prioritizing the vaccinated?]

Tatjana Hörnle

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Ethik in der Medizin : Organ der Akademie fur Ethik in der Medizin, 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

1 author.

Tatjana HörnleHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin und Max-Planck-Institut zur Erforschung von Kriminalität, Sicherheit und Recht, Günterstalstr. 73, 79100 Freiburg, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Definition of the problem: The article asks whether vaccination status could become relevant if it is unavoidable to prioritize between patients in intensive care units during a pandemic. The aim is to analyze different approaches and arguments in favor of and against the inclusion of vaccination status. Arguments: The following arguments are assessed: First, it has been argued that it is unnecessary to open this discussion. Second, one could make the point that public debates about touchy subjects should be avoided. A third, frequently expressed opinion claims that physicians must never discriminate between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, either because this is in conflict with human rights or because this is incompatible with the general principle that patients' prior conduct does not matter. Fourth, behavioral economists argue that intensive care medicine should take vaccination status into account with the goal to improve the overall numbers of vaccinations. A fifth line of thinking argues that it is more just to take vaccination into account. Conclusion: The author concludes that the omission to get a necessary and recommended vaccination may be taken into account if patients' prospects to survive are similar. She points out that lotteries would be worse.

Indexed as

COVID-19 pandemicGuidelines for resource allocationTriageVaccination status

Identifiers

PMID35967089
PMCPMC9361248

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.