ReviewNursing reports (Pavia, Italy)2024
Conscience at the End of Life.
Review in Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Induced abortion in the world: 3. In search of a minimum common ground.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesCaring for patients at the end of life can involve issues that are ethically and legally fraught: withholding or withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration, pain control that could hasten death, aggressive treatment that is continued when it seems only to be prolonging suffering, patients who request medical assistance in dying, and so forth. Clinicians may find that their deeply held ethical principles conflict with law, institutional policy, or patients' choices. In these situations, they may consider either refusing to participate in procedures that they find morally abhorrent (conscientious refusal) or providing care that they believe to be ethically obligatory despite being contrary to law or policy (conscientious commitment).
methodsThis paper reviews the ethical issues involved.
resultsEach of the usual policies for handling conscientious refusals faces serious challenges.
conclusionsHealthcare providers who refuse to provide medical services should be expected to explain their reasons, make prompt referrals, and bear some of the resulting costs or burdens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.