ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Patient autonomy and metabolic bariatric surgery: an empirical perspective.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMetabolic Bariatric Surgery (MBS) has gained significant popularity over the past decade. Legally and ethically, physicians should obtain the patient's voluntary and informed consent before proceeding with the surgery. However, the decision to undergo MBS is often influenced by external factors, prompting questions about their impact on the patient's ability to choose voluntarily. In addressing this issue, the study focuses on two key questions: first, which factors influence MBS candidates during the decision-making process, and second, whether these influences undermine the candidates' ability to make decisions voluntarily, according to theories of autonomy.
methodsThe study employed a qualitative methodology, conducting 21 in-depth semi-structured interviews with adults who had undergone bariatric surgery. The conclusions were drawn from an inductive analysis of the interview data conducted using a grounded theory approach, and by applying theories of autonomy to the empirical findings.
resultsOur study indicates that interviewees were exposed to different external influences, which had diverse effects on the interviewees' decision to undergo MBS. Category 1 influences included intentional attempts to induce people, through arguments and reason, to accept the attitudes advocated by the persuader in support of the surgery. Applying theoretical accounts of autonomy to these influences suggests that they did not compromise the interviewees' autonomy. Category 2 influences included threats made by a physician or a family member. These influences were found to undermine autonomy. Category 3 influences included emotional manipulation, informational manipulation, and the construction of medical and social norms. Manipulations and norms were experienced differently by different interviewees, and their impact on autonomy varies depending on the theoretical framework applied.
conclusionsAcknowledging that the influences exerted on MBS candidates may undermine their ability to make autonomous decisions regarding surgery, we suggest reformulating the duties that apply to medical practitioners with respect to informed consent to MBS. Medical practitioners who discuss the option of MBS with candidates should be aware of the various factors that influence this choice, and actively promote the candidates' ability to make autonomous decisions.
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.