↓ Skip to main content

Law as Clinical Evidence: A New ConstitutiveModel of Medical Education and Decision-Making

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Law as Clinical Evidence: A New ConstitutiveModel of Medical Education and Decision-Making
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11673-017-9836-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Malcolm Parker, Lindy Willmott, Ben White, Gail Williams, Colleen Cartwright

Abstract

Over several decades, ethics and law have been applied to medical education and practice in a way that reflects the continuation during the twentieth century of the strong distinction between facts and values. We explain the development of applied ethics and applied medical law and report selected results that reflect this applied model from an empirical project examining doctors' decisions on withdrawing/withholding treatment from patients who lack decision-making capacity. The model is critiqued, and an alternative "constitutive" model is supported on the basis that medicine, medical law, and medical ethics exemplify the inevitable entanglement of facts and values. The model requires that ethics and law be taught across the medical education curriculum and integrated with the basic and clinical sciences and that they be perceived as an integral component of medical evidence and practice. Law, in particular, would rank as equal in normative authority to the relevant clinical scientific "facts" of the case, with graduating doctors having as strong a basic command of each category as the other. The normalization of legal knowledge as part of the clinician's evidence base to be utilized in practice may provide adequate consolation for clinicians who may initially resent further perceived incursions on their traditional independence and discretion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 23%
Lecturer 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 7 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 12%
Psychology 3 12%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 February 2018.
All research outputs
#13,886,942
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#364
of 601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,057
of 441,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 441,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.