Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41094341›Full record

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

Values Frameworks as Ideal Types: Navigating Ethics Conflicts with Normative Minorities : Values Frameworks as Ideal Types: Response to Critics of "Surrogate Wars".

Autumn Fiester

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Autumn FiesterUniversity of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Dr., Philadelphia, PA, 19102, USA. fiester@upenn.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2087-0826

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the piece, "Surrogate Wars: The 'Best Interest Values' Hierarchy & End-of-Life Conflicts with Surrogate Decision-Makers," I argue that incommensurable value systems between healthcare providers (HCPs) and surrogate decision-makers (SDMs) lie at the root of many intractable end-of-life treatment disputes. I argue that the most prevalent value system of HCPs might be understood as a "Best Interest Values" (BIV) hierarchy and that this value system is irreconcilable with the set of "Life-Continuation Values" (LCV) held by a sizable minority of families in the United States. I believe that HCPs facing seemingly intractable conflict with SDMs would be aided by understanding their BIV values framework as just one of many cogent values systems in the context of US ethical pluralism. Five preeminent bioethicists provide insightful commentaries on my essay, offering pointed critiques, raising important challenges, and gesturing towards extensions and refinements of my argument. In this essay, I respond to those thoughtful and well-argued commentaries.

Indexed as

Decision MakingMinority GroupsSocial ValuesHumansTerminal CareUnited StatesClinical ethics consultationEnd-of-LifeFutilitySurrogate decision makingValues-Conflict

Identifiers

PMID41094341
PMCPMC12701862

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.