| Title |
Advance Directives in English and French Law: Different Concepts, Different Values, Different Societies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Care Analysis, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10728-012-0210-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ruth Judith Horn |
| Abstract |
In Western societies advance directives are widely recognised as important means to extend patient self-determination under circumstances of incapacity. Following other countries, England and France have adopted legislation aiming to clarify the legal status of advance directives. In this paper, I will explore similarities and differences in both sets of legislation, the arguments employed in the respective debates and the socio-political structures on which these differences are based. The comparison highlights how different legislations express different concepts emphasising different values accorded to the duty to respect autonomy and to protect life, and how these differences are informed by different socio-political contexts. Furthermore each country associates different ethical concerns with ADs which raise doubts about whether these directives are a theoretical idea which is hardly applicable in practice. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 22 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 22% |
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 13% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
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 10 May 2012.
All research outputs
#14,143,926
of 22,664,644 outputs
Outputs from Health Care Analysis
#206
of 296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,374
of 163,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Care Analysis
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,644 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 163,497 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.