Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42328252›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

Ethical Dilemmas in End-of-Life Care: A Psychological and Anesthetic Perspective.

Joshua Nmezi

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 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.

Joshua NmeziAnaesthesia / Clinical Psychology, Imo State University, Owerri, NGA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

End-of-life care presents some of the most complex and emotionally challenging ethical dilemmas in modern medicine. For anesthetists and clinical psychologists, these dilemmas intersect at the critical juncture where physiological support meets psychological suffering. This editorial advances the novel argument that the psychological distress inherent to the dying process constitutes a specific clinical entity (existential suffering), which requires interdisciplinary management distinct from standard symptom control. It explores the major ethical challenges encountered in end-of-life care, including decisions about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, do-not-resuscitate orders, medically administered nutrition and hydration, palliative sedation, and requests for assisted dying. The specific, practical roles of the anesthetist and clinical psychologist are detailed within a collaborative model, moving beyond generalities of "symptom management" and "grief support." Principles of biomedical ethics (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice) provide a framework for analyzing these dilemmas. Culturally specific decision-making frameworks for Nigerian and African contexts, including family-centric consensus models and communication scripts, are introduced. Practical recommendations are offered in the form of specific communication tools and assessment prompts for clinicians navigating these challenging situations and self-care to prevent moral distress and burnout.

Indexed as

advance directivesanaesthesiaclinical psychologycultural competencedouble effectend-of-life careethicsmoral distresspalliative care

Identifiers

PMID42328252
PMCPMC13283017

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.