ArticleBioethics2026
Beneficence-Based Obligations and Ethics Consultation in Assisted Dying.
Article in Bioethics, 2026. 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.
- An Expressivist Defence of Conscientious Objection in Physician-Assisted Dying.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In ethical debates on assisted dying, the principle of respect for autonomy is usually invoked to justify respecting requests for assisted dying. However, there are not only autonomy-based obligations, but also obligations arising from the principle of beneficence towards persons requesting assisted dying. What beneficence requires from persons providing assistance in dying is, however, far less obvious. We will argue that obligations of beneficence, in contrast to autonomy-based obligations, cannot fulfil a gatekeeping function in regulating access to assisted dying, that is, differentiate between ethically justified and unjustified cases. Nevertheless, they can and should play an important role in this context: Based on philosophical considerations on the concept of well-being, which is the focus of the principle of beneficence, we elaborate three different roles of beneficence-based obligations in the context of assisted dying: providing high standards of care, supporting autonomous decision-making and offering ethical guidance for health care professionals who consider providing assistance in dying. As we will show, these beneficence-based obligations can also support ethics consultation in assisted dying, especially in cases where there is ethical uncertainty among the assisting persons about whether they should follow the request and provide assistance in dying. Based on a principle-based approach to integrated ethical decision-making, we will demonstrate how an elaborated understanding of well-being and the specified beneficence-based obligations can contribute to balancing competing ethical obligations and promote ethically sound decisions in requests for assisted dying. The suggested approach can be used as a guidance for ethics consultation in requests for assisted dying.
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.