Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38346870›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2024

Courts, rights and the critically brain-injured patient.

Barry Lyons, Mary Donnelly

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Barry LyonsSchool of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin Faculty of Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland balyons@tcd.ie.ORCID 0000-0002-8806-1195
Mary DonnellySchool of Law, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-7612-9722

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reality of current clinical practice in the UK is that where a patient's family refuses to agree to testing for brain stem death (BD), such cases will ultimately end up in court. This situation is true of both adults and children and reinforced by recent legal cases. While recourse to the courts might be regrettable in such tragic cases, if public trust in the medical diagnosis of BD is to be maintained all aspects of the process must be conducted in a way that is transparent and open to scrutiny. This is not an 'ineffective expenditure' of resources, but an essential element of a human rights-compliant legal system.

Indexed as

Brain DeathHuman RightsAdultBrain InjuriesChildHumansUnited KingdomDeathHuman RightsInformed Consent

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.