English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Autonomy is widely accepted to be the third pillar of medical ethics. However, if it comes to refusal of life saving treatments, some extra considerations are necessary, especially if decisions are made by surrogate decision makers. Four cases of problematic decision making are presented here, followed by a discussion about the cultural and religious misconceptions about the rights of surrogate decision makers.

Autonomy in refusing life saving interventions: religious and cultural misconceptions