ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026
Who defines good and bad? Boundaries of family decision-making in palliative care: reflections and reconstruction based on Eastern culture.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 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
In clinical practice in China, particularly in cancer treatment, family decision-making plays an important role. Over the past few years, efforts have been made across China to promote the implementation of palliative care. Influenced by traditional Chinese culture, an ethical conflict exists between patient autonomous decision-making and family-oriented choices driven by traditional filial piety. This study explores the ethical boundaries of family participation, focusing on how traditional filial piety and family interests affect the judgment of patients' best interests within the Chinese cultural context. The analysis reveals that the Confucian virtue of filial piety may assist patients during treatment, but may infringe upon patients' rights and complicate the process of informed consent. Through philosophical reflection, the study reconstructs a context-adapted ethical framework that prioritizes patient wellbeing, takes into account psychological dignity, and clarifies reasonable limits for family participation. The revised standard emphasizes informed consent, transparent communication, and culturally sensitive care, aiming to promote ethical, humane, and sustainable shared decision-making in oncology palliative care.
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.