Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35985805›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2023

Making psychiatry moral again: the role of psychiatry in patient moral development.

Doug McConnell, Matthew Broome, Julian Savulescu

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2023. 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
15.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Doug McConnellOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK douglas.mcconnell@philosophy.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5813-0834
Matthew BroomeSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Julian SavulescuOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1691-6403
The University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT203132/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychiatric involvement in patient morality is controversial. If psychiatrists are tasked with shaping patient morality, the coercive potential of psychiatry is increased, treatment may be unfairly administered on the basis of patients' moral beliefs rather than medical need, moral disputes could damage the therapeutic relationship and, in any case, we are often uncertain or conflicted about what is morally right. Yet, there is also a strong case for the view that psychiatry often works through improving patient morality and, therefore, should aim to do so. Our goal is to offer a practical and ethical path through this conflict. We argue that the default psychiatric approach to patient morality should be procedural, whereby patients are helped to express their own moral beliefs. Such a procedural approach avoids the brunt of objections to psychiatric involvement in patient morality. However, in a small subset of cases where patients' moral beliefs are sufficiently distorted or underdeveloped, we claim that psychiatrists should move to a substantive approach and shape the

Indexed as

Moral DevelopmentPsychiatryDissent and DisputesHumansMoralsCoercionEthics- MedicalMoralsPaternalismPsychiatry

Identifiers

PMID35985805
PMCPMC10314018
OpenAlexW4292385094

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.