Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38803720›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Global Ethical Principles in Healthcare Networks, Including Debates on Euthanasia and Abortion.

Safa Mousavi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

1 author.

Safa MousaviPublic Health, California State University, Fresno, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In today's ever-evolving healthcare landscape, the focus is shifting towards integrated care, inter-organizational cooperation, and healthcare networks (HCNs) as alternatives to traditional healthcare institutions. This transformation is driven by factors such as an aging population and increasing healthcare costs, necessitating a reevaluation of ethical considerations to ensure the well-being of patients remains central. This review provides a narrative overview of ethics within HCNs, with a focus on patient-centered medical ethics. It elaborates on the four fundamental ethical principles, namely justice, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and autonomy. The principle of justice underscores HCNs' ethical obligation to provide equitable and transparent access to all patients, ensuring fairness in resource allocation. The principle of nonmaleficence underscores the responsibility to prioritize patient safety, while beneficence obliges HCNs to ensure continuity of care across all dimensions. Furthermore, the principle of autonomy is redefined as a commitment to actively promote and respect patient choices. HCNs that do not adhere to these ethical principles raise concerns and lack ethical justification. Additionally, the review delves into the legal aspects of euthanasia and abortion, both of which present complex ethical challenges in healthcare systems globally. A comparative analysis is provided, examining their legal status in Islamic countries, European nations, and the United States. This study sheds light on the evolving ethical landscape in HCNs and the diverse global perspectives on contentious issues. Therefore, harmonizing legislation and defining appropriate boundaries are crucial steps toward upholding ethical standards in healthcare practices on a global scale.

Indexed as

abortionautonomybeneficenceeuthanasiajusticenonmaleficenceprinciple of ethics

Identifiers

PMID38803720
PMCPMC11128767

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.