Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41857420›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2026

Why We Need a Dynamic Right to Withdraw in Individualized Antisense Oligonucleotide Therapy Development.

Mariia V Maksimova, Rosan L Lechner, Johannes J M van Delden, Ghislaine J M W van Thiel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2026. 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

4 authors.

Mariia V MaksimovaDepartment of Bioethics and Health Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Universiteitsweg 100, Utrecht, 3584 CG, The Netherlands. m.maksimova@umcutrecht.nl.
Rosan L LechnerDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, Rotterdam, 3015 GD, The Netherlands.
Johannes J M van DeldenDepartment of Bioethics and Health Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Universiteitsweg 100, Utrecht, 3584 CG, The Netherlands.
Ghislaine J M W van ThielDepartment of Bioethics and Health Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Universiteitsweg 100, Utrecht, 3584 CG, The Netherlands.

Funding

ZonMw 10250022110002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individualized therapies for ultra-rare diseases blur the lines between clinical care and medical research, creating emotional and practical entanglements. These entanglements, in the absence of clear ethical guidelines, put pressure on the fundamental right to withdraw. Conventional ethical guidelines treat withdrawal as absolute, unconditional, complete, and immediate; yet, in personalized therapies, abrupt withdrawal can mean significant scientific and societal losses. We argue for a shift: a dynamic approach to the right to withdraw, treating it not as a one-time decision but as an evolving dialogue throughout therapy development. Through reconstructing the patient journey, we highlight how bodily involvement, uncertainty, mutual dependence, and resource intensity vary across development phases. As these aspects evolve, the right to withdraw assumes different meanings. Shaping the right to withdraw as a dynamic allows for the exploration of patient perspectives and motivations and for balancing patient autonomy with the social and scientific value of individualized therapies. Such an approach turns the concept of the right to withdraw into an avenue for patient engagement and addressing early concerns, preventing any unnecessary adverse effects of withdrawal.

Indexed as

AutonomyResearch ethicsRight to withdrawTherapy developmentUltra-rare diseases

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.