ArticleAsian bioethics review2026
Relational Responsibility: Bringing the Wider Social Environment into the Analysis.
Article in Asian bioethics review, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Current conceptions of special responsibilities often adopt a narrow, individualistic lens that fails to consider the broader socio-relational context. In response to this gap, we propose a concept of relational responsibility that emphasises the interconnectedness of individuals and the wider societal context in which they exist. We posit that assigning relational responsibilities should not solely hinge on the voluntary nature of one's relationships, but rather on the intrinsic value of these connections, as determined by individuals who hold pertinent roles within those relationships or who would be impacted by the definition of value. Our account acknowledges that many responsibilities, especially in caregiving contexts, are not chosen freely, and there should be normative limits to protect individuals from unreasonable burdens. Recognising the role of structural conditions in shaping responsibilities, we argue that collectives with the capacity and resources have an obligation to support individuals by mitigating these burdens and creating just conditions for care. This relational and structural reframing offers a more ethically attuned and practically responsive understanding of responsibility.
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.