ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Ethical evaluation of urology specialists' knowledge and attitudes on the application of medical (chemical) castration for sexual offenders: a perspective from Turkey.
Article in BMC medical 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCourt-ordered medical (chemical) castration has pre-occupied Türkiye's legal and medical communities since the short-lived 2016 by-law that named urologists as key implementers. How do the very physicians expected to administer the intervention actually view it? This nationwide survey probes urology specialists' knowledge, ethical reasoning and practical attitudes toward medical castration for sexual offenders.
methodsA nationwide, cross-sectional online survey was conducted between April 2020 and October 2024. A 53-item questionnaire covering sociodemographic data, knowledge, ethical attitudes, and evaluative propositions about medical castration was distributed via professional mailing lists and direct e-mails. A total of 121 urology specialists participated. Data were analyzed with SPSS 26; descriptive statistics, Pearson χ², Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact tests, and Monte Carlo simulations were used, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsJust 47/121 (38.8%) could accurately cite the legal basis for medical castration; 33/121 (27.3%) reported detailed procedural knowledge. Legal awareness correlated with ≥ 11 years' practice (χ² = 10.14, p = 0.039) and prior medical-ethics coursework (χ² = 9.17, p = 0.034). While roughly seven in ten (71.9%) felt the option should exist in principle, only 24/121 (19.8%) endorsed mandatory application. A slim majority (53/121; 43.8%) insisted on written offender consent, and 96/121 (79.3%) would mandate pre-treatment counselling on adverse effects. More than half (62/121; 51.2%) feared "medicalising" criminal punishment, and nearly two-thirds voiced concern about becoming agents of the penal system. Support was uneven: higher among academics holding associate professorships (p = 0.012) and in the Marmara region (p = 0.005), yet markedly lower among physicians with children (p = 0.040).
conclusionUrology specialists in Türkiye exhibit a nuanced, often ambivalent stance: many view medical castration as potentially useful but emphasize voluntariness, informed consent, and multidisciplinary follow-up. Limited legal familiarity and substantial ethical reservations highlight the need for clearer legislation, strengthened ethics education, and alignment with international human-rights standards before wider implementation can be contemplated.
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.