↓ Skip to main content

Extending life for people with a terminal illness: a moral right and an expensive death? Exploring societal perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
Title
Extending life for people with a terminal illness: a moral right and an expensive death? Exploring societal perspectives
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0008-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neil McHugh, Rachel M Baker, Helen Mason, Laura Williamson, Job van Exel, Rohan Deogaonkar, Marissa Collins, Cam Donaldson

Abstract

Many publicly-funded health systems apply cost-benefit frameworks in response to the moral dilemma of how best to allocate scarce healthcare resources. However, implementation of recommendations based on costs and benefit calculations and subsequent challenges have led to 'special cases' with certain types of health benefits considered more valuable than others. Recent debate and research has focused on the relative value of life extensions for people with terminal illnesses. This research investigates societal perspectives in relation to this issue, in the UK. Q methodology was used to elicit societal perspectives from a purposively selected sample of data-rich respondents. Participants ranked 49 statements of opinion (developed for this study), onto a grid, according to level of agreement. These 'Q sorts' were followed by brief interviews. Factor analysis was used to identify shared points of view (patterns of similarity between individuals' Q sorts). Analysis produced a three factor solution. These rich, shared accounts can be broadly summarised as: i) 'A population perspective - value for money, no special cases', ii) 'Life is precious - valuing life-extension and patient choice', iii) 'Valuing wider benefits and opportunity cost - the quality of life and death'. From the factor descriptions it is clear that the main philosophical positions that have long dominated debates on the just allocation of resources have a basis in public opinion. The existence of certain moral positions in the views of society does not ethically imply, and pragmatically cannot mean, that all are translated into policy. Our findings highlight normative tensions and the importance of critically engaging with these normative issues (in addition to the current focus on a procedural justice approach to health policy). Future research should focus on i) the extent to which these perspectives are supported in society, ii) how respondents' perspectives relate to specific resource allocation questions, and iii) the characteristics of respondents associated with each perspective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 117 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 21%
Researcher 18 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Student > Bachelor 6 5%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 33 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 16%
Social Sciences 11 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 7%
Psychology 8 7%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 38 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 15 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,476,453
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#122
of 1,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,638
of 260,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,013 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 260,006 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.