↓ Skip to main content

Protecting prisoners’ autonomy with advance directives: ethical dilemmas and policy issues

Overview of attention for article published in Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Protecting prisoners’ autonomy with advance directives: ethical dilemmas and policy issues
Published in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, May 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11019-014-9571-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberto Andorno, David M. Shaw, Bernice Elger

Abstract

Over the last decade, several European countries and the Council of Europe itself have strongly supported the use of advance directives as a means of protecting patients' autonomy, and adopted specific norms to regulate this matter. However, it remains unclear under which conditions those regulations should apply to people who are placed in correctional settings. The issue is becoming more significant due to the increasing numbers of inmates of old age or at risk of suffering from mental disorders, all of whom might benefit from using advance directives. At the same time, the closed nature of prisons and the disparate power relationships that characterise them mean that great caution must be exercised to prevent care being withdrawn or withheld from inmates who actually want to receive it. This paper explores the issue of prisoners' advance directives in the European context, starting with the position enshrined in international and European law that prisoners retain all their human rights, except the right to liberty, and are therefore entitled to self-determination regarding health care decisions.

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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Lecturer 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 20%
Social Sciences 5 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 9 30%
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 26 June 2014.
All research outputs
#18,373,874
of 22,757,541 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#470
of 590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,046
of 226,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#11
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 226,344 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.