26 found
Sort by:
Disambiguations:
Paul J. Ford [26]Paul Jason Ford [1]
  1. Bryan Kibbe, Patrick Schmitt & Paul J. Ford (2015). An Ethicist's Scope of Practice: Equipping Stakeholders for Closure. American Journal of Bioethics 15 (1):37-38.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Joseph P. DeMarco & Paul J. Ford (2014). Neuroethics and the Ethical Parity Principle. Neuroethics 7 (3):317-325.
    Neil Levy offers the most prominent moral principles that are specifically and exclusively designed to apply to neuroethics. His two closely related principles, labeled as versions of the ethical parity principle , are intended to resolve moral concerns about neurological modification and enhancement [1]. Though EPP is appealing and potentially illuminating, we reject the first version and substantially modify the second. Since his first principle, called EPP , is dependent on the contention that the mind literally extends into external props (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Joseph P. DeMarco, Paul J. Ford, Dana J. Patton & Douglas O. Stewart (2014). Is There an Ethical Obligation to Disclose Controversial Risk? A Question From the ACCORD Trial. American Journal of Bioethics 14 (4):4-10.
    Researchers designing a clinical trial may be aware of disputed evidence of serious risks from previous studies. These researchers must decide whether and how to describe these risks in their model informed consent document. They have an ethical obligation to provide fully informed consent, but does this obligation include notice of controversial evidence? With ACCORD as an example, we describe a framework and criteria that make clear the conditions requiring inclusion of important controversial risks. The ACCORD model consent document did (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Joseph P. DeMarco, Paul J. Ford, Dana J. Patton & Douglas O. Stewart (2014). Response to the Open Peer Commentaries on “Is There an Ethical Obligation to Disclose Controversial Risk? A Question From the ACCORD Trial”. American Journal of Bioethics 14 (4):W1 - W2.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Laura L. Ross & Paul J. Ford (2012). Reframing Nonepileptic Seizure Patients' Care: Shifting the Blame. American Journal of Bioethics 12 (5):11-12.
    The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 5, Page 11-12, May 2012.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Kimberly M. Yee & Paul J. Ford (2011). Regulatory Misconception Muddies the Ethical Waters: Challenges to a Qualitative Study. Journal of Clinical Ethics 23 (3):217-20.
    In “Potential Subjects’ Responses to an Ethics Questionnaire in a Phase I Study of Deep-Brain Stimulation in Early Parkinson’s Disease,” Finder, Bliton, Gill, Davis, Konrad, and Charles undertake informed consent research on what they describe as a Phase I trial of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. We argue that the authors should have more carefully characterized the nature of the DBS study at the start of their clinical study.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Paul J. Ford (2009). Commentary. Hastings Center Report 39 (4):11-12.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Paul J. Ford (2009). Hacking the Mind. In Sandra Shapshay (ed.), Bioethics at the Movies. Johns Hopkins University Press. 156.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Paul J. Ford (2009). Vulnerable Brains: Research Ethics and Neurosurgical Patients. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 37 (1):73-82.
    Seven specific challenges in patient vulnerability related to neurosurgical advancement highlight needed augmentations for standards in innovation and research that do not unduly inhibit access to potential therapies while assuring just treatment of patients.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Paul J. Ford (2008). Special Section on Clincial Neuroethics Consultation: Introduction. [REVIEW] HEC Forum 20 (4):311-314.
  11. Paul J. Ford & Denise M. Dudzinski (eds.) (2008). Complex Ethics Consultations: Cases That Haunt Us. Cambridge University Press.
    Clinical ethicists encounter the most emotionally eviscerating medical cases possible. They struggle to facilitate resolutions founded on good reasoning embedded in compassionate care. This book fills the considerable gap between current texts and the continuing educational needs of those actually facing complex ethics consultations in hospital settings. 28 richly detailed cases explore the ethical reasoning, professional issues, and the emotional aspects of these impossibly difficult consultations. The cases are grouped together by theme to aid teaching, discussion and professional growth. The (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Keith A. Bauer, Courtney S. Campbell, Lauren A. Clark, Paul J. Ford, Sven Ove Hansson, Matti Häyry, Sarah Hayward, Peter Herissone-Kelly & Micah Hester (2007). Bette Anton, MLS, is Head Librarian for the Pamela & Kenneth Fong Optometry & Health Sciences Library of the University of California, Berkeley. This Library Serves the UC Berkeley School of Optometry and the UC Berkeley–UC San Francisco Joint Medical Program. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16:251-253.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Paul J. Ford (2007). Professional Clinical Ethicist: Knowing Why and Limits. Journal of Clinical Ethics 18 (3):243.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Paul J. Ford (2007). Neurosurgical Implants: Clinical Protocol Considerations. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16 (03):308-311.
    As neural implants transition from engineering design and testing into human subjects research, careful consideration must be paid to the ethical elements in developing research protocols. Although these ethical aspects may be framed by the design choices of the engineering, a number of challenging choices arise. In spite of many ethical considerations for neural implant technologies being shared with generic research ethics questions, there are subsets needing special attention. Even in considerations requiring increased attention, substantial overlap can be found with (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Paul J. Ford & Adrienne R. Boissy (2007). Different Questions, Different Goals. American Journal of Bioethics 7 (2):46 – 47.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Paul J. Ford & Cynthia S. Kubu (2007). Ameliorating and Exacerbating: Surgical "Prosthesis" in Addiction. American Journal of Bioethics 7 (1):32 – 34.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Cynthia S. Kubu & Paul J. Ford (2007). Ethics in the Clinical Application of Neural Implants. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16 (03):317-321.
    Once a neural implant has shown some efficacy during initial research trials, it begins to enter the world of clinical application. This culminates when the implant becomes approved for a particular indication. However, the ethical challenges continue as the technology is adopted as a standard of practice. Patient eligibility criteria, as documented by inclusion and exclusion criteria with any new treatment, are not always clearly quantified and defined. These vagaries can result in considerable debate regarding who should or should not (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Joseph P. Demarco & Paul J. Ford (2006). Balancing in Ethical Deliberation: Superior to Specification and Casuistry. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (5):483 – 497.
    Approaches to clinical ethics dilemmas that rely on basic principles or rules are difficult to apply because of vagueness and conflict among basic values. In response, casuistry rejects the use of basic values, and specification produces a large set of specified rules that are presumably easily applicable. Balancing is a method employed to weigh the relative importance of different and conflicting values in application. We argue against casuistry and specification, claiming that balancing is superior partly because it most clearly exhibits (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Paul J. Ford (2006). Advancing From Treatment to Enhancement in Deep Brain Stimulation: A Question of Research Ethics. The Pluralist 1 (2):35 - 44.
  20. Paul J. Ford, Thomas G. Fraser, Mellar P. Davis & And Eric Kodish (2005). Anti-Infective Therapy at End of Life: Ethical Decision-Making in Hospice-Eligible Patients. Bioethics 19 (4):379–392.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Paul J. Ford, Thomas G. Fraser, Mellar P. Davis & Eric Kodish (2005). Anti‐Infective Therapy at End of Life: Ethical Decision‐Making in Hospice‐Eligible Patients. Bioethics 19 (4):379-392.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Paul J. Ford & Cynthia S. Kubu (2005). Caution in Leaping From Functional Imaging to Functional Neurosurgery. American Journal of Bioethics 5 (2):23 – 25.
  23. Paul J. Ford & Toni Ann Nicoletti (2005). My Organs, My Choice. American Journal of Bioethics 5 (4):30 – 31.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Paul J. Ford (2003). Physician Obligation, Cultural Factors, and Neonatal Male Circumcision. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (2):58-59.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Paul J. Ford (2001). A Further Analysis of the Ethics of Representation in Virtual Reality: Multi-User Environments. [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 3 (2):113-121.
    This is a follow-up article toPhilip Brey's ``The ethics of representation andaction in Virtual Reality'' (published in thisjournal in January 1999). Brey's call for moreanalysis of ethical issues of virtual reality(VR) is continued by further analyzing issuesin a specialized domain of VR – namelymulti-user environments. Several elements ofBrey's article are critiqued in order to givemore context and a framework for discussion.Issues surrounding representations ofcharacters in multi-user virtual realities aresurveyed in order to focus attention on theimportance of additional discussion andanalysis of (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Paul J. Ford (2001). Paralysis Lost. Social Theory and Practice 27 (4):661-680.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation