Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41094340›Full record

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

Incompletely Theorized Agreement and Accommodated Disagreement in the Surrogate Wars.

Takunda Matose

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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.

Takunda MatoseCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 3333 Burnet Ave, Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA. takunda.matose@cchmc.org.ORCID 0000-0002-8339-8581

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this commentary, I argue that while the value-systems of healthcare providers and surrogate decision-makers might appear to be incommensurable, they share enough common ground over high-level principles that meaningful engagement between the two groups is possible. This engagement can happen through incompletely theorized agreements that allow discussants to focus on shared values while adhering to competing value-systems. Nonetheless, I argue that the privileging of both healthcare providers and their best interest value system within healthcare creates a continued and unjustified subordination of surrogate decision-makers that threatens to undermine the possibility of meaningful engagement between the two groups. As a solution, I suggest that end-of-life policies be structured in ways that emphasize common ground between healthcare providers and surrogate decision-makers while allowing the dissent of surrogate decision-makers to be a genuinely viable option whenever possible.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDissent and DisputesProxyHumansTerminal CareDeep disagreementEnd-of-lifeIncompletely theorized agreementsSurrogate decision-making

Identifiers

PMID41094340
PMCPMC12701848

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.