Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39249524›Full record

ArticleDer Nervenarzt2024

[Theoretical foundations of clinical ethics consultation in psychiatry].

Jakov Gather, Matthé Scholten

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Der Nervenarzt, 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.

Jakov GatherKlinik für Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie und Präventivmedizin, LWL-Universitätsklinikum, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Alexandrinenstr. 1-3, 44791, Bochum, Deutschland. jakov.gather@rub.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1681-7472
Matthé ScholtenInstitut für Medizinische Ethik und Geschichte der Medizin, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Deutschland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8000-8974

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical ethics consultants support mental health professionals in identifying and analyzing moral problems in clinical practice.

objectivePresentation of key ethical concepts and normative theories that are relevant for clinical ethics consultation in mental healthcare. MATERIAL AND

methodsConceptual and ethical analyses.

resultsAfter distinguishing between morality, ethics and law, moral problems are differentiated from other types of problems encountered in clinical practice. Subsequently, key ethical concepts and the concept of moral distress are clarified. In relation to the normative framework a distinction is made between philosophical ethical theories and medical ethical theories, such as principlism and the ethics of care. Finally, justification tests for ethical decision-making in situations of danger to self or others based on the harm principle and soft paternalism are proposed.

conclusionKnowledge of key ethical concepts and normative theories is important for the identification and analysis of moral problems in mental healthcare and should be given greater weight in the training of clinical ethics consultants.

Indexed as

Ethics ConsultationPsychiatryEthical TheoryGermanyHumansClinical ethicsClinical ethics committeeMedical ethicsMoral distressPhilosophy

Identifiers

PMID39249524
PMCPMC11525286

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.