↓ Skip to main content

Reciprocity and Ethical Tuberculosis Treatment and Control

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, January 2016
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 (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Reciprocity and Ethical Tuberculosis Treatment and Control
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11673-015-9691-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diego S. Silva, Angus Dawson, Ross E.G. Upshur

Abstract

This paper explores the notion of reciprocity in the context of active pulmonary and laryngeal tuberculosis (TB) treatment and related control policies and practices. We seek to do three things: First, we sketch the background to contemporary global TB care and suggest that poverty is a key feature when considering the treatment of TB patients. We use two examples from TB care to explore the role of reciprocity: isolation and the use of novel TB drugs. Second, we explore alternative means of justifying the use of reciprocity through appeal to different moral and political theoretical traditions (i.e., virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism). We suggest that each theory can be used to provide reasons to take reciprocity seriously as an independent moral concept, despite any other differences. Third, we explore general meanings and uses of the concept of reciprocity, with the primary intention of demonstrating that it cannot be simply reduced to other more frequently invoked moral concepts such as beneficence or justice. We argue that reciprocity can function as a mid-level principle in public health, and generally, captures a core social obligation arising once an individual or group is burdened as a result of acting for the benefit of others (even if they derive a benefit themselves). We conclude that while more needs to be explored in relation to the theoretical justification and application of reciprocity, sufficient arguments can be made for it to be taken more seriously as a key principle within public health ethics and bioethics more generally.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 15%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 21 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 24 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 23 March 2016.
All research outputs
#2,979,329
of 24,916,485 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#125
of 651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,190
of 405,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#9
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,916,485 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 405,985 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 70% of its contemporaries.