ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Balancing perspectives: a critical reflection on autonomy, respect and communication in end-of-life choice-making processes.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- End-of-life decision-making in very old critically ill patients.European geriatric medicine · 2026Review
- Advance care planning with patients of Islamic migration background: a qualitative study identifying the need for relational autonomy and hope-sustaining communication.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- How choice became a goal in itself: analysing the emphasis on choice and control at the end of life through the work of Charles Taylor.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn many Western countries, there is a growing tendency to seek control over death and dying. This leads to a practice in which people anticipate their hypothetical future by a timely explication of their end-of-life choices, such as do-not-resuscitate orders or euthanasia requests. These choices are often presented as individual, autonomous acts, potentially overlooking their relational dimensions. Against this background, this study examined how individual values and understandings of autonomy shape communication around end-of-life choices, and explored whether and how individualistic ideals are articulated, negotiated, or challenged within relational choice-making practices.
methodsA longitudinal, multiperspective, qualitative study was conducted, providing 70 in-depth interviews over two years with community-dwelling older adults (75 + years old) and their close ones. Empirical observations were combined with theoretical insights to investigate how autonomy and communication are enacted in anticipatory end-of-life decision-making and to enrich our conceptual thinking regarding respect for autonomy.
resultsOur findings illustrate that older adults often articulate end-of-life choices as individual decisions, while close ones tend to defer, even when feeling intimately involved or morally responsible. These tensions are intensified when meaningful dialogue is absent or when close ones feel unable to voice their values or concerns, revealing moral frictions between the ideal of individual autonomy and the relational reality of choice-making processes.
conclusionsOur findings highlight the limitations of framing end-of-life choices primarily as autonomous acts. We argue for a shift toward a more fundamentally relational conception, emphasizing interdependence and dialogue over more common notions of independence and non-interference. This approach may better align with the experiences of older adults and their close ones and provide a foundation for end-of-life care practices and policies that acknowledge and respond to the complexity of end-of-life decision-making.
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.