ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Prolonging Medical Procedures to Exploit the Peak-End Rule: An Ethical Analysis.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Peak-End Rule (PER) impacts how individuals remember events: experiences are primarily remembered according to the emotions associated with the experience's most intense moment (the peak) and those associated with its end (the end). The potential utility of exploiting the PER for improving patients' willingness to repeat unpleasant but medically useful procedures in the future has been demonstrated.
methodsThis paper conducts an analysis of the ethical issues surrounding the prolongation of medical procedures to exploit the PER. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION: Prolonging medical procedures to exploit the PER appears to satisfy the bioethical principles of beneficence and justice. It is unclear whether, by fully informing patients that the PER is being exploited by prolonging their painful medical procedures, the effect of the PER will persist. While it is unreasonable to expect doctors to provide patients with a full explanation of every medical decision involved in their care, the degree of transparency should reflect the significance that patients are likely to attach to those decisions. It is likely that patients will consider the decision to expose them to prolonged pain without immediate clinical benefits a significant decision. Accordingly, by failing to fully inform patients that the PER is being exploited (for fear of diminishing or eradicating its effect), patients are unable to make fully informed decisions, meaning doctors fail to respect patient autonomy while also acting in an unethically paternalistic manner. Furthermore, exploiting the PER in this manner might also violate the principle of non-maleficence, while appeals to the doctrine of double effect to justify this decision would likely be unsuccessful. A further analysis of the ethical issues surrounding the other ways in which the PER can be exploited in clinical practice, such as by reducing the intensity of pain at the peak of the experience with analgesia, is needed.
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.