Linked Life Data

2781504

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/2781504

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
2
pubmed:dateCreated
1989-10-26
pubmed:abstractText
We surveyed the approaches of 661 geneticists in 18 nations to 14 clinical cases and asked them to give their ethical reasons for choosing these approaches. Patient autonomy was the dominant value in clinical decision-making, with 59% of responses, followed by non-maleficence (20%), beneficence (11%) and justice (5%). In all, 39% described the consequences of their actions, 26% mentioned conflicts of interest between different parties and 72% placed patient welfare above the welfare of others. The U.S., Canada, Sweden, and U.K. led in responses favoring autonomy. There were substantial international differences in moral reasoning. Gender differences in responses reflected women's greater attention to relationships and supported feminist ethical theories.
pubmed:keyword
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
E
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Jun
pubmed:issn
0167-9902
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
10
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
123-38
pubmed:dateRevised
2010-11-18
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1989
pubmed:articleTitle
Moral reasoning among medical geneticists in eighteen nations.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't