↓ Skip to main content

Euthanasia tactics: patterns of injustice and outrage

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Euthanasia tactics: patterns of injustice and outrage
Published in
SpringerPlus, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-2-256
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian Martin

Abstract

Struggles over euthanasia can be examined in terms of tactics used by players on each side of the issue to reduce outrage from actions potentially perceived as unjust. From one perspective, the key injustice is euthanasia itself, especially when the person or relatives oppose death. From a different perspective, the key injustice is denial of euthanasia, seen as a person's right to die. Five types of methods are commonly used to reduce outrage from something potentially seen as unjust: covering up the action; devaluing the target; reinterpreting the action, including using lying, minimising consequences, blaming others and benign framing; using official channels to give an appearance of justice; and using intimidation. Case studies considered include the Nazi T4 programme, euthanasia in contemporary jurisdictions in which it is legal, and censorship of Exit International by the Australian government. By examining euthanasia struggles for evidence of the five types of tactics, it is possible to judge whether one or both sides use tactics characteristic of perpetrators of injustice. This analysis provides a framework for examining tactics used in controversial health issues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 18%
Lecturer 2 12%
Student > Master 2 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 12%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 18%
Psychology 3 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 12%
Social Sciences 2 12%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 2 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 June 2013.
All research outputs
#12,877,506
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#621
of 1,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,610
of 197,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#23
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 197,654 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.