Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36286070›Full record

ArticleClinics and practice2022

Is It Worth Knowing That You Might Die Tomorrow? Revisiting the Ethics of Prognosis Disclosure.

Eisuke Nakazawa, Keiichiro Yamamoto, Reina Ozeki-Hayashi, Margie Hodges Shaw, Akira Akabayashi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinics and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Eisuke NakazawaDepartment of Biomedical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-3320-3811
Keiichiro YamamotoNational Center for Global Health and Medicine, Center for Clinical Sciences, Tokyo 162-8655, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-4763-4030
Reina Ozeki-HayashiDepartment of Biomedical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-4394-7830
Margie Hodges ShawDepartment of Health Humanities and Bioethics, University of Rochester Medical Center, New York, NY 14642, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9068-9029
Akira AkabayashiDepartment of Biomedical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-0811-1955

Funding

Mitsubishi Foundation 201920005Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education 2022-0101
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ethical discourse on prognosis disclosure is not yet well established. The core of the problem continues to be the dilemma between the right of self-determination and non-maleficence of patients. The prognosis disclosure policy based on Kantian autonomy provides a good solution for the problem. The policy includes demand for strict truth telling and its compatibility with patients' best interest. However, there remains a discrepancy between theory and practice, especially when prognosis is disclosed just prior to their death. Kantian theory of prognosis is supplemented by a moralistic perspective. The moralistic perspective places high importance on temporality and relationships with others, which all human beings inherently possess. From the moralistic viewpoint, decisions about prognosis disclosure at the final stages of life must be individualized in order to be authentically autonomous. The decision to disclose a prognosis or not can only be determined by the relationships fostered over time with patients.

Indexed as

clinical ethicshuman dignitymoralistic viewpointprognosis disclosuretruth disclosure

Identifiers

PMID36286070
PMCPMC9600686

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.