↓ Skip to main content

Beyond cultural stereotyping: views on end-of-life decision making among religious and secular persons in the USA, Germany, and Israel

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 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
Beyond cultural stereotyping: views on end-of-life decision making among religious and secular persons in the USA, Germany, and Israel
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0170-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark Schweda, Silke Schicktanz, Aviad Raz, Anita Silvers

Abstract

End-of-life decision making constitutes a major challenge for bioethical deliberation and political governance in modern democracies: On the one hand, it touches upon fundamental convictions about life, death, and the human condition. On the other, it is deeply rooted in religious traditions and historical experiences and thus shows great socio-cultural diversity. The bioethical discussion of such cultural issues oscillates between liberal individualism and cultural stereotyping. Our paper confronts the bioethical expert discourse with public moral attitudes. The paper is based on a qualitative study comprising 12 focus group discussions with religious and secular persons in the USA, Germany, and Israel (n = 82). Considering the respective socio-political and legal frameworks, the thematic analysis focuses on moral attitudes towards end-of-life decision making and explores the complex interplay between individual preferences, culture, and religion. Our findings draw attention to the variety and complexity of cultural and religious aspects of end-of-life decision making. Although there is local consensus that goes beyond radical individualism, positions are not neatly matched with national cultures or religious denominations. Instead, the relevance of the specific situatedness of religious beliefs and cultural communities becomes visible: Their status and role in individual situations, for example, as consensual or conflicting on the level of personal perspectives, family relationships, or broader social contexts, e.g., as a majority or minority culture within a political system. As the group discussions indicate, there are no clear-cut positions anchored in "nationality," "culture," or "religion." Instead, attitudes are personally decided on as part of a negotiated context representing the political, social and existential situatedness of the individual. Therefore, more complex theoretical and practical approaches to cultural diversity have to be developed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 116 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 15%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 37 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 26 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 14%
Psychology 11 9%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 39 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 16 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,852,602
of 24,988,543 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#585
of 1,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,571
of 315,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#10
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,988,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 315,141 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.