Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Does research ethics rest on a mistake?Franklin G. Miller - 2005 - American Journal of Bioethics 5 (1):34 – 36.
  • Surrogate consent to non-beneficial research: erring on the right side when substituted judgments may be inaccurate.Mats Johansson & Linus Broström - 2016 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 37 (2):149-160.
    Part of the standard protection of decisionally incapacitated research subjects is a prohibition against enrolling them unless surrogate decision makers authorize it. A common view is that surrogates primarily ought to make their decisions based on what the decisionally incapacitated subject would have wanted regarding research participation. However, empirical studies indicate that surrogate predictions about such preferences are not very accurate. The focus of this article is the significance of surrogate accuracy in the context of research that is not expected (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Does peer benefit justify research on incompetent individuals? The same-population condition in codes of research ethics.Mats Johansson & Linus Broström - 2012 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 15 (3):287-294.
    Research on incompetent humans raises ethical challenges, especially when there is no direct benefit to these research subjects. Contemporary codes of research ethics typically require that such research must specifically serve to benefit the population to which the research subjects belong. The article critically examines this “same-population condition”, raising issues of both interpretation and moral justification. Of particular concern is the risk that the way in which the condition is articulated and rationalized in effect disguises or downplays the instrumentalization of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Exploiting subjects in placebo-controlled trials.Nancy S. Jecker - 2002 - American Journal of Bioethics 2 (2):19 – 20.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Waste not, want not: Cognitive impairment should not preclude research participation.Gavin W. Hougham - 2005 - American Journal of Bioethics 5 (1):36 – 37.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Empirical research on informed consent with the cognitively impaired.Gavin W. Hougham, Greg A. Sachs, Deborah Danner, Jim Mintz, Marian Patterson, Laura W. Roberts, Laura A. Siminoff, Jeremy Sugarman, Peter J. Whitehouse & Donna Wirshing - 2003 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 25 (5):s26 - 32.
  • Is best interests a relevant decision making standard for enrolling non-capacitated subjects into clinical research?Jeffrey T. Berger - 2011 - Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (1):45-49.
    The ‘best interests’ decision making standard is used in clinical care to make necessary health decisions for non-capacitated individuals for whom neither explicit nor inferred wishes are known. It has been also widely acknowledged as a basis for enrolling some non-capacitated adults into clinical research such as emergency, critical care, and dementia research. However, the best interests standard requires that choices provide the highest net benefit of available options, and clinical research rarely meets this criterion. In the context of modern (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations