↓ Skip to main content

Protest of doctors: a basic human right or an ethical dilemma

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Protest of doctors: a basic human right or an ethical dilemma
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-15-24
Pubmed ID
Authors

Imran Naeem Abbasi

Abstract

Peaceful protests and strikes are a basic human right as stated in the United Nations' universal declaration on human rights. But for doctors, their proximity to life and death and the social contract between a doctor and a patient are stated as the reasons why doctors are valued more than the ordinary beings. In Pakistan, strikes by doctors were carried out to protest against lack of service structure, security and low pay. This paper discusses the moral and ethical concerns pertaining to the strikes by medical doctors in the context of Pakistan. The author has carefully tried to balance the discussion about moral repercussions of strikes on patients versus the circumstances of doctors working in public sector hospitals of a developing country that may lead to strikes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 22%
Student > Master 9 16%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Librarian 4 7%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 34%
Psychology 5 9%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Philosophy 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 11 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 17 May 2020.
All research outputs
#754,217
of 16,206,340 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#65
of 723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,181
of 190,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,206,340 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 190,554 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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