ArticleDeutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2026
[Value judgments in the determination of a medical indication - An interdisciplinary analysis].
Article in Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical indications are based on a synthesis of medical expertise, professional ethical standards, and legal requirements. This paper examines the extent to which value judgments influence these determinations and how they can be ethically approached.The interdisciplinary conceptual and normative analysis incorporates theoretical approaches from medical science, case studies, empirical findings, and legal considerations to identify and critically discuss the various levels of value judgments involved in the indication process.Value judgments influence determining medical indications, particularly with regard to the choice of one of the goals of medicine and how probabilities, uncertainties, personal attitudes, and social norms, are handled. Some judgments do not fall within the physician's scope of responsibility, at least not in the context of medical indication, e.g., economic or allocation considerations. For clarity, it is essential to differentiate physicians' assessments and patients' preferences, to explicate professional values, and to integrate assessments and individual values within decision-making processes.Value judgments made in determining a medical indication are unavoidable and must be carefully considered. Values should be made transparent in order to justify medical interventions that are judged to be indicated or not by physicians on a case-by-case basis and to strengthen patients' self-determination. A social debate is needed on how to appropriately address considerations (such as economic) which should not be mixed up with medical indications.
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.