| Title |
Biologically-related or emotionally-connected: who would be the better surrogate decision-maker?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11019-014-9577-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ashleigh Watson, Brigid Sheridan, Michelle Rodriguez, Ali Seifi |
| Abstract |
As an incapacitated patient is unable to make decisions regarding their care, physicians turn to next-of-kin when appointing a surrogate decision-maker in the absence of an advanced directive. With the increasing complexity of modern families, physicians are facing new ethical dilemmas when choosing the individual to make end-of-life decisions for their patients. Legal definitions and hierarchies are no longer adhering to the purpose of a surrogate-decision maker, which is to maintain a patient's autonomy. Moral criteria for surrogates, which emphasize the importance of making decisions that align with the patient's desires and wishes and negate biological relationships over emotional connections, are becoming much more important. This paper explores a case study in which physicians must appoint a surrogate decision-maker for an incapacitated patient, forced to choose between a biological relationship and a strong emotional connection. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 18% |
| Researcher | 3 | 18% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 18% |
| Unknown | 1 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 35% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 35% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 6% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 June 2014.
All research outputs
#5,576,547
of 22,757,090 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#149
of 590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,180
of 228,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#5
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,090 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
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 228,190 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.