ArticleAsian bioethics review2026
A Legal Framework for Reducing Violence in Healthcare Institutions: A Comparative Study and Policy Recommendations.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Violence against healthcare workers poses a serious global threat to both individual safety and institutional integrity. Yet, many legal systems still rely on general criminal statutes that fail to address the specific vulnerabilities of healthcare settings. This study employs a comparative legal analysis, integrating normative philosophical frameworks-specifically consequentialism and retributivism-to evaluate how seven jurisdictions (Canada, India, Oklahoma-USA, England, Thailand, Bangladesh, and China) respond to healthcare violence. Findings show that jurisdictions with healthcare-specific legislation, such as Canada, China, and England, more effectively align legal sanctions with deterrence, institutional resilience, and moral accountability. In contrast, countries relying solely on general criminal law, such as Thailand and Bangladesh, provide limited normative clarity and protection. Intermediate models, such as India and Oklahoma, offer context-specific responses but lack comprehensive continuity. Synthesizing these insights, the study proposes a unified legal framework grounded in legal specificity, proportionality, and a balanced normative rationale. The model contributes to ethical discourse, informs legal reform, and supports Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 3, 8, and 16. By bridging comparative law and moral philosophy, this study provides actionable strategies to safeguard healthcare workers and strengthen justice within health systems.
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.