The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Autonomy in Long Term Care: Some Crucial Distinctions1
Abstract
In long term care, conflicts over autonomy can begin at the level of conceptualization, especially when basic distinctions and polarities are not adequately recognized. To indicate this conceptual complexity, six polarities are identified and examined. Case studies illustrate how each polarity can give rise to ethical problems in long term care practice. Further directions for gerontological theory, practice, and research are indicated by a series of focal questions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Family decision‐making in advanced dementia: narrative and ethics
Elliott, B. A., Gessert, C. E., & Peden‐McAlpine, C. (2009) · Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.2008.00613.x · Cited by 96
Wilson, N. L., Lantz, M. S., Buchalter, E. N., & McBee, L. (1997) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/37.4.551 · Cited by 62
Lee, J., Jung, D., & Choi, M. (2016) · Japan Journal of Nursing Science · doi:10.1111/jjns.12081 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Collopy, B. J.
- Venue
- The Gerontologist
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1988-06-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- Suppl
- Pages
- 10-17
- ISSN
- 0016-9013 (ISSN-L)
- 1758-5341
- OpenAlex
- W1984225407
- Cited by
- 325
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
