↓ Skip to main content

Buddhism and Medical Futility

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Buddhism and Medical Futility
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, October 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11673-012-9392-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tuck Wai Chan, Desley Hegney

Abstract

Religious faith and medicine combine harmoniously in Buddhist views, each in its own way helping Buddhists enjoy a more fruitful existence. Health care providers need to understand the spiritual needs of patients in order to provide better care, especially for the terminally ill. Using a recently reported case to guide the reader, this paper examines the issue of medical futility from a Buddhist perspective. Important concepts discussed include compassion, suffering, and the significance of the mind. Compassion from a health professional is essential, and if medical treatment can decrease suffering without altering the clarity of the mind, then a treatment should not be considered futile. Suffering from illness and death, moreover, is considered by Buddhists a normal part of life and is ever-changing. Sickness, old age, birth, and death are integral parts of human life. Suffering is experienced due to the lack of a harmonious state of body, speech, and mind. Buddhists do not believe that the mind is located in the brain, and, for Buddhists, there are ways suffering can be overcome through the control of one's mind.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Other 5 9%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 12 22%
Unknown 16 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 26%
Psychology 4 7%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 18 33%

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 30 December 2012.
All research outputs
#14,156,397
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#386
of 594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,253
of 173,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 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 594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 173,073 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them