Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38421491›Full record

ArticleMonash bioethics review2024

Deference or critical engagement: how should healthcare practitioners use clinical ethics guidance?

Ben Davies, Joshua Parker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Monash bioethics review, 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

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.

Ben DaviesDepartment of Philosophy, University of Sheffield, Victoria Street, Sheffield, S3 7QB, UK. ben.davies@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4612-7894
Joshua ParkerWythenshawe Hospital, Southmoor Rd. Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 104848/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthcare practitioners have access to a range of ethical guidance. However, the normative role of this guidance in ethical decision-making is underexplored. This paper considers two ways that healthcare practitioners could approach ethics guidance. We first outline the idea of deference to ethics guidance, showing how an attitude of deference raises three key problems: moral value; moral understanding; and moral error. Drawing on philosophical literature, we then advocate an alternative framing of ethics guidance as a form of moral testimony by colleagues and suggest that a more promising attitude to ethics guidance is to approach it in the spirit of 'critical engagement' rather than deference.

Indexed as

Ethics, ClinicalAttitude of Health PersonnelDecision MakingHealth PersonnelHumansMoralsEthics guidanceMoral deferenceMoral testimonyProfessional ethics

Identifiers

PMID38421491
PMCPMC11369004

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.