Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42138015›Full record

ArticleNursing inquiry2026

Dignity of Risk or Redistribution of Responsibility? Re-Thinking Ethics, Autonomy and Nursing Practice in Contemporary Aged Care.

Gideon Dzando

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing 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

1 author.

Gideon DzandoResearch Centre for Public Health, Equity and Human Flourishing, Torrens University Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8852-7680

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The principle of dignity of risk (DoR) has become a cornerstone of contemporary aged care reform. DoR is ethically framed as an extension of autonomy and person-centred care. While widely considered in policy and professional discourse, DoR is often treated as a self-evident ethical good, with limited critical attention to how it is operationalised within regulated care systems. This paper offers a critical ethical analysis of DoR as enacted in contemporary aged care, arguing that it functions not merely as a moral principle but as a moral technology that redistributes responsibility, liability and ethical burden across residents, nurses, families, organisations and regulatory structures. Drawing on nursing ethics, relational autonomy and regulatory theory, the paper examines how documentation practices, audit cultures and family involvement reconstitute nurses as ethical risk brokers who must legitimise resident choice while remaining accountable for adverse outcomes. Rather than rejecting DoR, the paper reframes it as a form of collective ethical responsibility which requires organisational, regulatory and moral support for nurses beyond individualised accountability. This analysis highlights the need to move from symbolic invocations of autonomy toward ethically sustainable practices that recognise the relational and institutional labour underpinning DoR in everyday nursing practice.

Indexed as

Ethics, NursingGeriatric NursingPatient-Centered CareRespectSocial ResponsibilityHumansPersonal AutonomyPersonhoodProfessional Autonomyaged careautonomydignity of riskmoral responsibilitynursing ethicsregulation

Identifiers

PMID42138015
PMCPMC13479759

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.