Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesEthics and bioethics in healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Family presence during resuscitation: extending ethical norms from paediatrics to adults

Vincent, Christine, Lederman, Zohar·2017·Journal of Medical Ethics
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2016-103881
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Many families of patients hold the view that it is their right to be present during a loved one's resuscitation, while the majority of patients also express the comfort and support they would feel by having them there. Currently, family presence is more commonly accepted in paediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) than adult CPR. Even though many guidelines are in favour of this practice and recognise potential benefits, healthcare professionals are hesitant to support adult family presence to the extent that paediatric family presence is supported. However, in this paper, we suggest that the ethical case to justify family presence during paediatric resuscitation (P-FPDR) is weaker than the justification of family presence during adult resuscitation (A-FPDR). We go on to support this claim using three main arguments that people use in clinical ethics to justify FPDR. These include scarcity of evidence documenting disruption, psychological benefits to family members following the incident and respect for patient autonomy. We demonstrate that these arguments actually apply more strongly to A-FPDR compared with P-FPDR, thereby questioning the common attitude of healthcare professionals of allowing the latter while mostly opposing A-FPDR. Importantly, we do not wish to suggest that P-FPDR should not be allowed. Rather, we suggest that since P-FPDR is commonly (and should be) allowed, so should A-FPDR. This is because the aforementioned arguments that are used to justify FPDR in general actually make a stronger case for A-FPDR.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/medethics-2016-103881

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 31 references

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Vincent, C., & Lederman, Z.
Affiliations
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
Corresponding author
Vincent, Christine
ORCID
Lederman, Zohar
Venue
Journal of Medical Ethics
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-02-23
Volume
43
Issue
10
Pages
676-678
ISSN
  • 0306-6800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-4257
DOI
10.1136/medethics-2016-103881
OpenAlex
W2589778936
Cited by
46
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2
FWCI
8.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
family presence during resuscitation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, pediatric resuscitation, adult resuscitation, clinical ethics, patient autonomy, clinician attitudes, moral justification
MeSH terms
Psychological Trauma, Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Child, Critical Care, Family, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Professional-Family Relations, Visitors to Patients, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, Practice Guidelines as Topic

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.