↓ Skip to main content

Disability, vulnerability and assisted death: commentary on Tuffrey-Wijne, Curfs, Finlay and Hollins

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, November 2019
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
4 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
Disability, vulnerability and assisted death: commentary on Tuffrey-Wijne, Curfs, Finlay and Hollins
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, November 2019
DOI 10.1186/s12910-019-0426-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim Stainton

Abstract

This paper builds on the work of Tuffrey-Wijne et al. and explores the issue of vulnerability and persons with disabilities in relation to Euthnasia and Assisted Dying (EAS). The commentary draws on both the literature and on case examples from Canada. Specifically, it considers the issue of EAS as an alternative to, or substituted for, appropriate disability supports. Secondly, it considers the issue of the devaluation of disabled lives in general and within health care practice and ethics. It concludes that current safeguards are inadequate and that as EAS regimes become more permissive the risk to disabled persons will increase.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 50%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 50%
Social Sciences 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 02 March 2020.
All research outputs
#847,008
of 15,154,029 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#72
of 665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,191
of 346,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#11
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,154,029 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 665 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 well, scoring higher than 89% 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 346,597 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.