Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36069966›Full record

ArticleHEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues2024

Clinical Ethics Consultation in Chronic Illness: Challenging Epistemic Injustice Through Epistemic Modesty.

Tatjana Weidmann-Hügle, Settimio Monteverde

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tatjana Weidmann-HügleInstitute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. tatjana.weidmann@ibme.uzh.ch.ORCID 0000-0003-1628-459X
Settimio MonteverdeInstitute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Bern University of Applied Sciences · CHUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Leading paradigms of clinical ethics consultation closely follow a biomedical model of care. In this paper, we present a theoretical reflection on the underlying biomedical model of disease, how it shaped clinical practices and patterns of ethical deliberation within these practices, and the repercussions it has on clinical ethics consultations for patients with chronic illness. We contend that this model, despite its important contribution to capturing the ethical issues of day-to-day clinical ethics deliberation, might not be sufficient for patients presenting with chronic illnesses and navigating as "lay experts" of their medical condition(s) through the health care system. Not fully considering the sources of personal knowledge and expertise may lead to epistemic injustice within an ethical deliberation logic narrowly relying on a biomedical model of disease. In caring "for" and collaboratively "with" this patient population, we answer the threat of epistemic injustice with epistemic modesty and humility. We will propose ideas about how clinical ethics could contribute to an expansion of the biomedical model of care, so that important aspects of chronic illness experience would flow into clinical-ethical decision-making.

Indexed as

Ethics ConsultationChronic DiseaseEthics, ClinicalHumansSocial JusticeBiomedical model of diseaseChronic illnessClinical ethicsClinical ethics consultationEpistemic injusticeScientific epistemology

Identifiers

PMID36069966
PMCPMC11070385
OpenAlexW4294921524

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.