
doi: 10.1002/hast.270
pmid: 24634050
AbstractWhen I first started at the Center, I approached our public affairs and communications manager to see if I could help bolster our Twitter presence. I saw social media as having a potential to reach people in a way academic papers and conferences never could. My own desire to see knowledge of bioethical issues seep into the general public's consciousness fueled this optimistic view. Twitter seemed to be an especially effective method of widening the reach of bioethics. It would help create a wider Hastings Center community by spreading knowledge and creating a new forum for discussion. But Twitter has its limits. I believe new media provides more fluid ways of communicating, but can 140 characters inspire anyone to read and think more about the value of a family's wishes against the costs of keeping a legally dead person on a ventilator?
Life Support Care, Brain Death, Withholding Treatment, Humans, Bioethical Issues, Fetal Death, Medical Futility, Social Media
Life Support Care, Brain Death, Withholding Treatment, Humans, Bioethical Issues, Fetal Death, Medical Futility, Social Media
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
