Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37226748›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics2023

Do Physicians Have a Duty to Discuss Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs with their Patients? A Normative Analysis.

Stefan F Vermeulen, Marjolijn Hordijk, Ruben J Visser, Eline M Bunnik

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & 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
–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. Devil in the Details: Physician Duties and Expanded Access.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Stefan F VermeulenDEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ETHICS, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF MEDICINE, ERASMUS MC, UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTRE ROTTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS.
Marjolijn HordijkDEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ETHICS, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF MEDICINE, ERASMUS MC, UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTRE ROTTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS.
Ruben J VisserDEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ETHICS, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF MEDICINE, ERASMUS MC, UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTRE ROTTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS.
Eline M BunnikDEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ETHICS, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF MEDICINE, ERASMUS MC, UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTRE ROTTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drawing on ethical and legal frameworks in the Netherlands, the United States and France, we examine whether physicians are expected to inform patients about potentially relevant opportunities for expanded access to investigational drugs. While we found no definitive legal obligation, we argue that physicians have a moral obligation to discuss opportunities for expanded access with patients who have run out of treatment options to prevent inequality, to promote autonomy, and to achieve beneficence.

Indexed as

Drugs, InvestigationalPhysiciansBeneficenceFranceHumansMoral ObligationsDrugs, InvestigationalExpanded AccessInvestigational TreatmentsMoral ObligationsProfessional ObligationsShared Decision MakingTreatment Options

Identifiers

PMID37226748
PMCPMC10209970

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.