Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42475152›Full record

ArticleThe Hastings Center report

Bearing Witness at the Bedside: The Role-Specific Obligations of Surrogate Decision-Makers.

Julia Kolak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Hastings Center report. 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.

Julia Kolak

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In "Can I Get a Witness? The Ethical Dimensions of Family Presence in Patient Suffering," Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby and colleagues ask whether there is a duty for family members to be present at the bedside of an unconscious or minimally conscious patient. In responding to the article, I argue that the authors' presumption against a general duty for this bedside presence follows in part from the level of generality at which the question is posed. As the categories "family," "unconscious," and "suffering" are too heterogeneous to generate a single, action-guiding obligation of bedside presence, I suggest that the question should be reframed as one concerning whether surrogate decision-makers should be thought of as incurring narrower role-specific obligations that sometimes require bedside presence. In surfacing the practical circumstances in which questions surrounding perceived family absence are typically raised by clinicians, this reply also suggests an overlooked dimension of such conflicts: they may signal uncertainty about the conditions under which surrogate authority is being exercised. The possibility that this uncertainty underlies clinicians' occasional frustration can become an important conceptual foothold for clinical ethics facilitation.

Indexed as

Decision MakingFamilyProxyEthics ConsultationHumansclinical ethicsclinical ethics consultationend‐of‐life careend‐of‐life decision‐makingsurrogate decision‐making

Identifiers

PMID42475152
PMCPMC13384076

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.