Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41094339›Full record

ArticleHEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues2025

Competing World Views, Professional Norms, and Conscience.

Ana S Iltis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ana S IltisWake Forest University, 1834 Wake Forest Rd., Winston-Salem, NC, 27106, USA. iltisas@wfu.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-0624-3022

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sometimes patients or their legally authorized representatives/surrogate decision makers request interventions that clinicians believe ought not to be provided because, for example, they will merely prolong the life of a patient whose quality of life clinicians deem poor. When such disagreements cannot be resolved, clinicians may request a clinical ethics consultation. Some institutions have policies and some jurisdictions have laws addressing such conflicts, many of which involve procedures that ultimately allow for unilaterally withholding life-sustaining interventions. Autumn Fiester has argued that a radically new approach for addressing such conflicts is needed. I argue that Fiester's analysis relates closely to and has implications for other debates and key topics in the bioethics literature and raises important questions that merit further exploration. These include the concept of professional values or professional ethics and of values imposition, both of which are important in the literature on conscientious objection.

Indexed as

BioethicsConscienceHumansClinical ethics consultationConscientious objectionFutilityLife-sustaining interventionsProfessional values

Identifiers

PMID41094339
PMCPMC12701857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.