Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41891346›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics2026

Support in Decision-Making for All.

Jasmine Gunkel, David Wasserman, Leslie Francis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 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

3 authors.

Jasmine GunkelDepartment of Philosophy, https://ror.org/01cwqze88National Institutes of Health, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9485-5250
David WassermanDepartment of Bioethics, https://ror.org/01cwqze88National Institutes of Health, United States.
Leslie FrancisLaw and Philosophy, https://ror.org/03r0ha626University of Utah, United States.

Funding

Surrogate Decision MakingZIACL010536 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI WENDLER, DAVID S · 2010 to 2025
$0k
Research and clinical care without informed consentZIACL010537 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI WENDLER, DAVID S · 2014 to 2025
$0k
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA CL010536Intramural NIH HHS ZIA CL010537NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent decades, theorists of disability rights have made the moral and legal case for supported decision-making. Whereas surrogate decision-making, the long upheld legal standard, looks to a third party to make a decision for a person deemed to lack the capacity to make that decision for themselves, support in decision-making empowers that person to make their own decisions. In this article, we argue for a significant shift in the norms governing enrollment in clinical trials. Rather than assume that support is only appropriate for individuals who cannot independently make sufficiently informed enrollment decisions, we propose "support in decision-making for all" when research protocols are beyond a certain risk threshold. Drawing inspiration from the universal design movement and feminist insights about autonomy, we argue that making support in decision-making the presumption has substantial expressive and practical benefits, and better empowers all potential research participants to make more informed, autonomous decisions.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicDecision MakingInformed ConsentPersonal AutonomyHumansMental Competencyautonomydisability rightsinformed consentresearch ethicssupported decision-making

Identifiers

PMID41891346
PMCPMC13222653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.