↓ Skip to main content

The role of ‘accompagnement’ in the end-of-life debate in France: from solidarity to autonomy

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
The role of ‘accompagnement’ in the end-of-life debate in France: from solidarity to autonomy
Published in
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, December 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11017-016-9389-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie Gaille, Ruth Horn

Abstract

This article traces the way autonomy has become a recognised value in health care in France. In a country that based its social fundamentals on the very idea of solidarity for many years, autonomy has long been considered a foreign 'Anglo-American principle'. Taking the example of the end-of-life debate, the article shows, however, how the use of the French term 'accompagnement' allowed autonomy to be redefined and to be associated with the concept of solidarity. Exploring the arguments used over the past 25 years in professional guidelines, parliamentary reports, ethics committee reports, and legal texts, the authors describe the shift that took place in public and legal discourses on end-of-life care. The analysis demonstrates how the scope of autonomy has been limited by other social values, such as the protection of the dying person, in order to become an accepted social value in its own right. The example of the French end-of-life debate shows that depending on how the concept of autonomy is adapted and applied in a specific context, it can be compatible with the idea of solidarity. Such compatibility has been challenged previously in the international bioethics debate. By demonstrating the possibility of combining autonomy and solidarity, this article makes an important contribution to the international bioethics debate and to the dialogue between countries that are often perceived as significantly different.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 23%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Unknown 7 54%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 15%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Unknown 7 54%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2016.
All research outputs
#15,284,663
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#177
of 291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,044
of 415,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 291 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 415,262 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.