Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36490383›Full record

ArticleBioethics2023

Religious pluralism and the ethics of healthcare.

Robert Audi, William R Smith

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Bioethics, 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Robert AudiDepartment of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.
William R SmithDepartment of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6611-0817

Funding

Educating Physician Scientists in Psychiatry (EPSP): Firing up the next generation of translational and clinical neuroscientistsR25MH119043 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Mariella De Biasi, MATTHEW S KAYSER · 2019 to 2026
$1.6M
NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH119043
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Democratic societies that separate church and state face major challenges in accommodating religious convictions. This applies especially to determining healthcare policies. Building on our prior work on the demands and limits of religious accommodation in democratic societies, we propose a set of ethical standards that can guide societies in meeting this challenge. In applying and defending these standards, we explore three topics: vaccine resistance, abortion, and concerns about rights to healthcare. We clarify these and other issues of religious accommodation and propose ethical standards for approaching these and other problems.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedDelivery of Health CareCultural DiversityFemaleHealth PolicyHumansMoral ObligationsPregnancyabortionliberal democracymedical ethicsreligious objectionright to healthcarevaccination mandates

Identifiers

PMID36490383
PMCPMC10841336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.