48 found
Order:
See also:
Profile: Nancy King
  1.  7
    Nancy M. P. King (2000). Defining and Describing Benefit Appropriately in Clinical Trials. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28 (4):332-343.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   22 citations  
  2. Leili Fatehi, Susan M. Wolf, Jeffrey McCullough, Ralph Hall, Frances Lawrenz, Jeffrey P. Kahn, Cortney Jones, Stephen A. Campbell, Rebecca S. Dresser, Arthur G. Erdman, Christy L. Haynes, Robert A. Hoerr, Linda F. Hogle, Moira A. Keane, George Khushf, Nancy M. P. King, Efrosini Kokkoli, Gary Marchant, Andrew D. Maynard, Martin Philbert, Gurumurthy Ramachandran, Ronald A. Siegel & Samuel Wickline (2012). Recommendations for Nanomedicine Human Subjects Research Oversight: An Evolutionary Approach for an Emerging Field. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (4):716-750.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  3.  3
    Ken Kipnis, Nancy M. P. King & Robert M. Nelson (2006). An Open Letter to Institutional Review Boards Considering Northfield Laboratories' Polyheme® Trial. American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):18 – 21.
    At the time of this writing, a widely publicized, waived-consent trial is underway. Sponsored by Northfield Laboratories, Inc. (Evanston, IL) the trial is intended to evaluate the emergency use of PolyHeme®, an oxygen-carrying resuscitative fluid that might prevent deaths from uncontrolled bleeding. The protocol allows patients in hemorrhagic shock to be randomized between PolyHeme® and saline in the field and, still without consent, randomized between PolyHeme® and blood after arrival at an emergency department. The Federal regulations that govern the waiver (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  4. Gail E. Henderson & Nancy M. P. King (forthcoming). Studying Benefit in Gene Transfer Research. IRB: Ethics & Human Research.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  2
    Richard Robeson & Nancy M. P. King (2014). Loss of Possession: Concussions, Informed Consent, and Autonomy. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 42 (3):334-343.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  6.  2
    Nancy M. P. King & Richard Robeson (2013). Athletes Are Guinea Pigs. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (10):13 - 14.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  7. Nancy M. P. King (2000). Defining and Describing Benefit Appropriately in Clinical Trials. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 28 (4):332-343.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  8. Nancy M. P. King (2015). The Importance of Amicable and Productive Disagreement. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 40 (3):286-288.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  9.  13
    Richard Robeson & Nancy M. P. King (2014). Loss of Possession: Concussions, Informed Consent, and Autonomy. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 42 (3):334-343.
    The recent explosion of publicity about the dangers of concussion in contact sports — particularly in football — represents the unraveling of a disinformation campaign by the NFL amid growing public and professional concern about the game's long-term risks of harm. The persistence of controversy and denial reflects a cultural view of football players as serving the needs of the team, a resulting evidentiary skepticism, and resistance to rule changes as excessive or unenforceable. This article considers the cultural context of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  10.  3
    Gail E. Henderson, Arlene M. Davis & Nancy M. P. King (2004). Vulnerability to Influence: A Two-Way Street. American Journal of Bioethics 4 (3):50 – 52.
  11.  2
    Nancy M. P. King (2013). There's A Lot We Don't Know (and We Ought to Say So). American Journal of Bioethics 13 (12):20-21.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  12.  11
    Leili Fatehi, Susan M. Wolf, Jeffrey McCullough, Ralph Hall, Frances Lawrenz, Jeffrey P. Kahn, Cortney Jones, Stephen A. Campbell, Rebecca S. Dresser, Arthur G. Erdman, Christy L. Haynes, Robert A. Hoerr, Linda F. Hogle, Moira A. Keane, George Khushf, Nancy M. P. King, Efrosini Kokkoli, Gary Marchant, Andrew D. Maynard, Martin Philbert, Gurumurthy Ramachandran, Ronald A. Siegel & Samuel Wickline (2012). Recommendations for Nanomedicine Human Subjects Research Oversight: An Evolutionary Approach for an Emerging Field. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40 (4):716-750.
    The nanomedicine field is fast evolving toward complex, “active,” and interactive formulations. Like many emerging technologies, nanomedicine raises questions of how human subjects research (HSR) should be conducted and the adequacy of current oversight, as well as how to integrate concerns over occupational, bystander, and environmental exposures. The history of oversight for HSR investigating emerging technologies is a patchwork quilt without systematic justification of when ordinary oversight for HSR is enough versus when added oversight is warranted. Nanomedicine HSR provides an (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  13.  27
    Nancy M. P. King & Richard Robeson (2007). Athlete or Guinea Pig? Sports and Enhancement Research. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 1 (1).
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  14.  6
    Nancy M. P. King (2012). Nanomedicine First-in-Human Research: Challenges for Informed Consent. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40 (4):823-830.
    Risks of harm, translational uncertainty, ambiguities in potential direct benefit, and long-term follow-up merit consideration in first-in-human research. Some nanomedical technologies have additional characteristics that should be addressed, including: defining and describing nanomedical interventions; bystander risks; the therapeutic misconception; and a decision-making context that includes both common use of nanomaterials outside medicine and persistent unknowns about the effects of nanosize. This paper considers how to address these issues in informed consent to first-in-human nanomedicine research.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  15.  1
    Nancy M. P. King (2012). Nanomedicine First-in-Human Research: Challenges for Informed Consent. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (4):823-830.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  16.  5
    Nancy M. P. King (2002). RAC Oversight of Gene Transfer Research: A Model Worth Extending? Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 30 (3):381-389.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  17.  11
    Rebecca L. Walker & Nancy M. P. King (2011). Biodefense Research and the U.S. Regulatory Structure Whither Nonhuman Primate Moral Standing? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 21 (3):277-310.
    Biodefense and emerging infectious disease animal research aims to avoid or ameliorate human disease, suffering, and death arising, or potentially arising, from natural outbreaks or intentional deployment of some of the world’s most dreaded pathogens. Top priority research goals include finding vaccines to prevent, diagnostic tools to detect, and medicines for smallpox, plague, ebola, anthrax, tularemia, and viral hemorrhagic fevers, among many other pathogens (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [NIAID] priority pathogens). To this end, increased funding for conducting (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  18.  8
    Nancy M. P. King (1999). Who Ate the Apple? A Commentary on the Core Competencies Report. HEC Forum 11 (2):170-175.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  19. Nancy M. P. King (2002). RAC Oversight of Gene Transfer Research: A Model Worth Extending? Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 30 (3):381-389.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  20.  3
    Nancy M. P. King (1995). Experimental Treatment Oxymoron or Aspiration? Hastings Center Report 25 (4):6-15.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  21.  4
    Nancy M. P. King (2016). Shaping Our Selves: On Technology, Flourishing, and a Habit of Thinking by Erik Parens. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 26 (1):5-10.
    In Shaping Our Selves, Erik Parens offers both a personal history of bioethics and a cleverly clarifying lens to train on disputes in bioethics about emerging technologies. The question for readers is whether this lens, as useful as it is, leaves too much outside our field of vision. Parens, born in 1957, comes from the first wave of bioethics scholars—those of us who still mostly happened into bioethics as a field, before it was sufficiently well-established to be identified as a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. Ken Kipnis, Nancy M. P. King & Robert M. Nelson (2006). Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “An Open Letter to Institutional Review Boards Considering Northfield Laboratories' PolyHeme® Trial”: The Emergency Exception and Unproven/Unsatisfactory Treatment. American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):W49-W50.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  23.  3
    Mark A. Hall & Nancy M. P. King (2016). Conscience, Courage, and “Consent”. Hastings Center Report 46 (2):30-32.
    On September 8, 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making to revise the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, widely known as the “Common Rule.” The NPRM proposes several changes to the current system, including a dramatic shift in the approach to secondary research using biospecimens and data. Under the current rules, it is relatively easy to use biospecimens and data for secondary research. This approach systematically facilitates secondary research with (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  44
    Nancy M. P. King (1991). Dying Made Legal: New Challenge for Advance Directives. [REVIEW] HEC Forum 3 (4):187-199.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. Alan W. Cross, Larry R. Churchill & Nancy M. P. King (1987). The Physician as Captain of the Ship a Critical Reappraisal.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  26.  9
    James H. Jones & Nancy M. P. King (2012). Bad Blood Thirty Years Later: A Q&A with James H. Jones. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40 (4):867-872.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  28
    Kathleen Cranley Glass, David B. Resnik, Stephen Olufemi Sodeke, Halley S. Faust, Rebecca Dresser, Nancy M. P. King, C. D. Herrera, David Orentlicher & Lynn A. Jansen (2006). Protection of Human Subjects and Scientific Progress: Can the Two Be Reconciled? Hastings Center Report 36 (1):4-9.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  4
    Gail E. Henderson, Eric T. Juengst, Nancy M. P. King, Kristine Kuczynski & Marsha Michie (2012). What Research Ethics Should Learn From Genomics and Society Research: Lessons From the ELSI Congress of 2011. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40 (4):1008-1024.
    Research on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of human genomics has devoted significant attention to the research ethics issues that arise from genomic science as it moves through the translational process. Given the prominence of these issues in today's debates over the state of research ethics overall, these studies are well positioned to contribute important data, contextual considerations, and policy arguments to the wider research ethics community's deliberations, and ultimately to develop a research ethics that can help guide (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29.  8
    Nancy M. P. King & Ana S. Iltis (2012). INTRODUCTION: Research Ethics: Reexamining Key Concerns. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40 (4):865-866.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30.  4
    Nancy M. P. King (2003). Accident & Desire: Inadvertent Germline Effects in Clinical Research. Hastings Center Report 33 (2):23-30.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31.  10
    Robert M. Nelson, Nancy M. P. King & Ken Kipnis (2010). An Open Letter to Institutional Review Boards Considering Northfield Laboratories' PolyHeme® Trial. American Journal of Bioethics 10 (10):5-8.
    At the time of this writing, a widely publicized, waived-consent trial is underway. Sponsored by Northfield Laboratories, Inc. (Evanston, IL) the trial is intended to evaluate the emergency use of PolyHeme?, an oxygen-carrying resuscitative fluid that might prevent deaths from uncontrolled bleeding. The protocol allows patients in hemorrhagic shock to be randomized between PolyHeme? and saline in the field and, still without consent, randomized between PolyHeme? and blood after arrival at an emergency department. The Federal regulations that govern the waiver (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32.  11
    Nancy M. P. King (1996). The Ethics Committee as Greek Chorus. HEC Forum 8 (6):346-354.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33.  3
    Nancy M. P. King (1992). Transparency in Neonatal Intensive Care. Hastings Center Report 22 (3):18-25.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34.  3
    Nancy M. P. King (2009). Benefits, Harms, and Motives in Clinical Research. Hastings Center Report 39 (4):3-3.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  1
    Nancy M. P. King (2009). Reviews in Medical Ethics. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37 (1):147-148.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Gail E. Henderson, Eric T. Juengst, Nancy M. P. King, Kristine Kuczynski & Marsha Michie (2012). What Research Ethics Should Learn From Genomics and Society Research: Lessons From the ELSI Congress of 2011. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (4):1008-1024.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. James H. Jones & Nancy M. P. King (2012). Bad BloodThirty Years Later: A Q&A with James H. Jones. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (4):867-872.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. Nancy M. P. King & John C. Moskop (2012). Advance Care Planning and End-of-Life Decision-Making. In D. Micah Hester & Toby Schonfeld (eds.), Guidance for Healthcare Ethics Committees. Cambridge University Press
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. Nancy M. P. King & Michael J. Hyde (eds.) (2011). Bioethics, Public Moral Argument, and Social Responsibility. Routledge.
    Bioethics, Public Moral Argument, and Social Responsibility explores the role of democratically oriented argument in promoting public understanding and discussion of the benefits and burdens of biotechnological progress. The contributors examine moral and policy controversies surrounding biomedical technologies and their place in American society, beginning with an examination of discourse and moral authority in democracy, and addressing a set of issues that include: dignity in health care; the social responsibilities of scientists, journalists, and scholars; and the language of genetics and (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40. Nancy M. P. King & Michael J. Hyde (eds.) (2014). Bioethics, Public Moral Argument, and Social Responsibility. Routledge.
    _Bioethics, Public Moral Argument, and Social Responsibility_ explores the role of democratically oriented argument in promoting public understanding and discussion of the benefits and burdens of biotechnological progress. The contributors examine moral and policy controversies surrounding biomedical technologies and their place in American society, beginning with an examination of discourse and moral authority in democracy, and addressing a set of issues that include: dignity in health care; the social responsibilities of scientists, journalists, and scholars; and the language of genetics and (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. Nancy M. P. King & Michael J. Hyde (eds.) (2011). Bioethics, Public Moral Argument, and Social Responsibility. Routledge.
    _Bioethics, Public Moral Argument, and Social Responsibility_ explores the role of democratically oriented argument in promoting public understanding and discussion of the benefits and burdens of biotechnological progress. The contributors examine moral and policy controversies surrounding biomedical technologies and their place in American society, beginning with an examination of discourse and moral authority in democracy, and addressing a set of issues that include: dignity in health care; the social responsibilities of scientists, journalists, and scholars; and the language of genetics and (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42. Nancy M. P. King & Ana S. Iltis (2012). INTRODUCTION: Research Ethics: Reexamining Key Concerns. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (4):865-866.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43. Nancy M. P. King (2015). Moral Entanglements: The Ancillary-Care Obligations of Medical Researchers, Written by Henry S. Richardson. Journal of Moral Philosophy 12 (6):787-789.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44. Nancy M. P. King (2000). Not for Distribution. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28:332-343.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. Nancy M. P. King (forthcoming). Perspective: The Stories We Tell Ourselves. Hastings Center Report.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. Nancy M. P. King (2009). Reviews in Medical Ethics. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 37 (1):147-148.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47. Nancy M. P. King (2007). The Glass House : Assessing Bioethics. In Lisa A. Eckenwiler & Felicia Cohn (eds.), The Ethics of Bioethics: Mapping the Moral Landscape. Johns Hopkins University Press
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. Nancy M. P. King (2003). The Stories We Tell Ourselves. Hastings Center Report 33 (5):48-48.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography