ArticleSociology of health & illness2025
Deus Ex Machina: An Ethnographic Exploration of Technology, Death and Decision-Making in Respiratory Care.
Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dual perspectives: Navigating the roles of physician and ethnographer in sensitive spaces.Qualitative research in medicine & healthcare · 2026Article
- Deus Ex Machina: An Ethnographic Exploration of Technology, Death and Decision-Making in Respiratory Care.Sociology of health & illness · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Noninvasive advanced respiratory support (NARS) is widely used in acute respiratory failure, including at the end of life, where its use is ethically and emotionally fraught. This ethnographic study examines how decisions to initiate, sustain or withdraw NARS are negotiated within the institutional and moral complexities of a UK hospital. Drawing on fieldwork including nonparticipant observation, reflective fieldnotes and composite narratives, this paper explores how dying is not simply recognised but discursively produced through clinical interactions. Guided by Foucault's concept of power/knowledge and Orlikowski's theory of technology-in-practice, this study shows how authority circulates unevenly across professional boundaries and how machines become nonhuman actors that structure time, command clinical attention and produce epistemically privileged outputs. These outputs, especially blood gas samples, change the flow of power/knowledge and can override patient experience, shaping decisions around palliation. By tracing how clinical truth is co-produced through medical technology, discursive hierarchies and institutional logics, this paper intervenes in sociological debates on end-of-life care, technological agency and the moral labour of frontline staff. It argues that recognising dying is not merely a clinical judgement but an emergent, distributed achievement, one shaped as much by machines and metrics as by human actors.
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.