Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Partnering with Patients to Bridge Gaps in Consent for Acute Care Research”

, , , , , , , , , , , &
American Journal of Bioethics 20 (8):W12-W13 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Volume 20, Issue 8, August 2020, Page W12-W13.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1080/15265161.2020.1782531

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,475

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Partnering With Patients to Bridge Gaps in Consent for Acute Care Research.Neal W. Dickert, Amanda Michelle Bernard, JoAnne M. Brabson, Rodney J. Hunter, Regina McLemore, Andrea R. Mitchell, Stephen Palmer, Barbara Reed, Michele Riedford, Raymond T. Simpson, Candace D. Speight, Tracie Steadman & Rebecca D. Pentz - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (5):7-17.
An Unbiased Response to the Open Peer Commentaries on “Does Consent Bias Research?”.Mark A. Rothstein & Abigail B. Shoben - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (4):W1 - W4.
Partnering With Research Staff Members to Bridge Gaps in Consent.Emily E. Anderson - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (5):28-30.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries: When Is It Ethical for Physician-Investigators to Seek Consent From Their Own Patients?Stephanie R. Morain, Steven Joffe & Emily A. Largent - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (5):W3-W4.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Misrepresenting ‘Usual Care’ in Research: An Ethical and Scientific Error”.Ruth Macklin & Charles Natanson - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (1):W12-W14.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “A Decisional Analysis of Consent”.Jonathan Baron - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):W51-W53.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “What is The Best Standard for the Standard of Care in Clinical Research?”.Rieke van der Graaf & Johannes J. M. van Delden - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (6-7):7-8.
Patients' views of consent in clinical trials for acute myocardial infarction: impact of trial design.Neal W. Dickert, Kristopher A. Hendershot, Candace D. Speight & Alexandra E. Fehr - 2017 - Journal of Medical Ethics 43 (8):524-529.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “How to Do Research Fairly in an Unjust World”.Angela J. Ballantyne - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (6):4-6.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Why Consent May Not Be Needed For Organ Procurement”.James Delaney & David B. Hershenov - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (8):1-2.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on "Defining the Scope of Implied Consent in the Emergency Department".Mark Graber & Raul Easton - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (12):3-4.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Health Research Priority Setting: The Duties of Individual Funders”.Leah Pierson & Joseph Millum - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (1):W5-W7.
Treating Patients as Persons: A Capabilities Approach to Support Delivery of Person-Centered Care.Vikki A. Entwistle & Ian S. Watt - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (8):29-39.
Nudging in Context: Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Nudging and Informed Consent”.Shlomo Cohen - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (11):W1 - W6.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Addressing Consent Issues in Donation After Circulatory Determination of Death”.Kim J. Overby, Michael S. Weinstein & Autumn Fiester - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (9):3-5.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-08-07

Downloads
14 (#981,381)

6 months
6 (#510,434)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Rules of the Road for Patient-Driven Consent Processes.Hayden P. Nix & Charles Weijer - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (5):36-37.

View all 13 references / Add more references