Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42068520›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2026

Navigating patients' refusal of information in clinical practice - a clinical scenario.

Jenny Lindberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 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

1 author.

Jenny LindbergDepartment of Clinical Sciences Lund, Medical Ethics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. jenny.lindberg@med.lu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8177-8276

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The right of patients to decline information about their health, prognosis, and available treatment options is a salient principle in both domestic law and international declarations and conventions. This right may be considered either unnegotiable or subject to certain terms and conditions. While respecting this right may seem straightforward, doing so in clinical practice can be challenging. This article uses a realistic hypothetical scenario to examine the epistemic, moral, and practical challenges that can arise, particularly with patients nearing the end of life. These challenges include how and when to honor the right and its potential conflict with moral values such as self-determination, authenticity, and avoiding harm to oneself and others. The end of life exacerbates these issues because of the irretrievability of decisions and the successive reduction of possible courses of action, as well as potentially changing preferences. These potential conflicts of values deserve further attention and must be considered when deciding whether to honor a patient's wish not to know.

Indexed as

Patient RightsTerminal CareDecision MakingEthical DilemmasHumansPersonal AutonomyAuthenticityDecision-makingEnd-of-life careSelf-determinationThe right not to know

Identifiers

PMID42068520
PMCPMC13633942

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.