ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
On Medical Tourism Overseas: Ethical Analysis of the Duties of NHS Doctors in Managing the Negative Health Consequences of Accessing Medical Treatments Abroad.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAn increasing number of UK residents are travelling overseas to access medical treatments, the negative health consequences of which are largely managed by NHS doctors.
methodsThis paper performs an ethical analysis, using the ethical framework of principlism, of the duties of NHS doctors in managing these negative health consequences of medical tourism overseas.
findingsWhile the doctor's duty to respect patient autonomy contains a negative duty to not interfere with their choice to access medical treatment overseas, it also contains a positive duty to ensure this choice is informed. This requires those considering medical tourism overseas to be counselled on the risks. This should take place directly by counselling, and indirectly through public health messaging. Beneficence requires the doctor to promote the patient's health, therefore obligating them to treat complications of medical tourism overseas, to intervene if poor cosmetic outcomes negatively impact the patient's mental health, and to refer the patient if the necessary aftercare is insufficiently or entirely unavailable on the NHS. Beneficence also requires doctors to remove harm, meaning they must counsel patients about the risks of medical tourism overseas to minimise the risk of negative health consequences. Justice requires NHS doctors to care for patients according to their clinical needs regardless of how that need has arisen, including the negative health consequences of medical tourism abroad, and requires NHS doctors to minimise these negative health consequences to minimise the scarce resources allocated to addressing them. The duty of non-maleficence is not relevant in this context.
conclusionAmongst other requirements, this paper finds that NHS doctors must counsel those considering medical tourism overseas on the risks of doing so, and existing efforts to do so should be increased to reflect the increasing prevalence of medical tourism overseas by UK residents and the associated negative health consequences.
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.