↓ Skip to main content

Ethical arguments for access to abortion services in the Republic of Ireland: recent developments in the public discourse

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Ethics, May 2018
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
31 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Ethical arguments for access to abortion services in the Republic of Ireland: recent developments in the public discourse
Published in
Journal of Medical Ethics, May 2018
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2017-104728
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joan McCarthy, Katherine O’Donnell, Louise Campbell, Dolores Dooley

Abstract

The Republic of Ireland has some of the most restrictive abortion legislation in the world which grants to the 'unborn' an equal right to life to that of the pregnant woman. This article outlines recent developments in the public discourse on abortion in Ireland and explains the particular cultural and religious context that informs the ethical case for access to abortion services. Our perspective rests on respect for two very familiar moral principles - autonomy and justice - which are at the centre of social and democratic societies around the world. This article explains the context for the deployment of these concepts in order to support the claim that the current legislation and its operationalisation in clinical practice poses serious risks to the health, lives and well-being of pregnant women, tramples on their autonomy rights and requires of them a self-sacrifice that is unreasonable and unjust.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 24%
Student > Bachelor 4 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Researcher 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 20%
Social Sciences 3 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Arts and Humanities 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 7 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 18 January 2020.
All research outputs
#872,255
of 21,636,364 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Ethics
#260
of 3,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,215
of 298,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Ethics
#7
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,636,364 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 3,331 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 298,647 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 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.