| Title |
Ancillary care obligations in light of an African bioethic: from entrustment to communion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11017-017-9404-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thaddeus Metz |
| Abstract |
Henry Richardson recently published the first book ever devoted to ancillary care obligations, which roughly concern what medical researchers are morally required to provide to participants beyond what safety requires. In it, Richardson notes that he is presenting the 'only fully elaborated view out there' on this topic, which he calls the 'partial-entrustment model'. In this article, I provide a new theory of ancillary care obligations, one that is grounded on ideals of communion salient in the African philosophical tradition and that is intended to rival and surpass Richardson's model, which is a function of Western considerations of autonomy. I argue that the relational approach of the former has several virtues in comparison to the basic individualism of the latter. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 22% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 22% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 4 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 17% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 28% |
| Unknown | 3 | 17% |
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 April 2017.
All research outputs
#20,412,387
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#268
of 292 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,981
of 308,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 292 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 308,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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.