27 found
Sort by:
Disambiguations:
Sarah J. L. Edwards [13]Sarah Jl Edwards [11]Sarah Edwards [3]
See also:
Profile: Sarah Edwards
Profile: Sarah Edwards (Middlesex University)
  1. Sarah J. L. Edwards (2014). Experimental Treatments for Ebola. Research Ethics 10 (3):126-128.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Sarah J. L. Edwards (2014). Risk Adapted Regulation of Clinical Trials. Research Ethics 10 (1):2-5.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Charles Weijer, Monica Taljaard, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Sarah Jl Edwards & Martin P. Eccles (2014). The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials: A Short Report. Research Ethics 10 (2):77-85.
    Owing to unique features of their design, cluster randomized trials complicate the interpretation of standard ethics guidelines. The recently published Ottawa statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials provides researchers and research ethics committees with detailed guidance on the design, conduct and review of cluster trials. The Ottawa statement sets out 15 recommendations, including guidance on the justification of study design, the need for research ethics committee review, the identification of research participants, obtaining informed consent, the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Sarah Jl Edwards (2013). Ethics of Clinical Science in a Public Health Emergency: Drug Discovery at the Bedside. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (9):3-14.
    Clinical research under the usual regulatory constraints may be difficult or even impossible in a public health emergency. Regulators must seek to strike a good balance in granting as wide therapeutic access to new drugs as possible at the same time as gathering sound evidence of safety and effectiveness. To inform current policy, I reexamine the philosophical rationale for restricting new medicines to clinical trials, at any stage and for any population of patients (which resides in the precautionary principle), to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Sarah Jl Edwards (2013). Editorial: Tamiflu and the Open Data Campaign. Research Ethics 9 (3):94-96.
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Sarah Jl Edwards (2013). Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Ethics of Clinical Science in a Public Health Emergency: Drug Discovery at the Bedside”. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (9):W1 - W3.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Sarah J. L. Edwards (2012). Protecting Privacy Interests in Brain Images : The Limits of Consent. In Sarah Richmond, Geraint Rees & Sarah J. L. Edwards (eds.), I Know What You're Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy. Oxford University Press.
  8. Sarah J. L. Edwards, Sapfo Lignou & Elizabeth Oduwo (2012). Evidence of Efficacy and Human Right to Health. American Journal of Bioethics 12 (6):35-37.
    The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 6, Page 35-37, June 2012.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Sarah J. L. Edwards & Geraint Rees (2012). Conclusion. In Sarah Richmond, Geraint Rees & Sarah J. L. Edwards (eds.), I Know What You're Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy. Oxford University Press.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Sarah J. L. Edwards & James Wilson (2012). Hard Paternalism, Fairness and Clinical Research: Why Not? Bioethics 26 (2):68-75.
    Jansen and Wall suggest a new way of defending hard paternalism in clinical research. They argue that non-therapeutic research exposing people to more than minimal risk should be banned on egalitarian grounds: in preventing poor decision-makers from making bad decisions, we will promote equality of welfare. We argue that their proposal is flawed for four reasons.First, the idea of poor decision-makers is much more problematic than Jansen and Wall allow. Second, pace Jansen and Wall, it may be practicable for regulators (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Sarah Jl Edwards (2012). Editor's Choice. Research Ethics 8 (1):7-8.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Sarah Jl Edwards (2012). Editorial: Do Mechanistic Studies Have More to Prove Than Positive Results? Research Ethics 8 (4):187-190.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Sapfo Lignou & Sarah Jl Edwards (2012). Manipulation of Information in Medical Research: Can It Be Morally Justified? Research Ethics 8 (1):9-23.
    The aim of this article is to examine whether informational manipulation, used intentionally by the researcher to increase recruitment in the research study, can be morally acceptable. We argue that this question is better answered by following a non-normative account, according to which the ethical justifiability of informational manipulation should not be relevant to its definition. The most appropriate criterion by which informational manipulation should be considered as morally acceptable or not is the researcher’s special moral duties towards their subjects. (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Sarah Richmond, Geraint Rees & Sarah J. L. Edwards (eds.) (2012). I Know What You're Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy. Oxford University Press.
    'I know what you're thinking' is a fascinating exploration into the neuroscientific evidence on 'mind reading'.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Jonathan Wolff, Sarah Edwards, Sarah Richmond, Shepley Orr & Geraint Rees (2012). Evaluating Interventions in Health: A Reconciliatory Approach. Bioethics 26 (9):455-463.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Jonathan Wolff, Sarah Edwards, Sarah Richmond, O. R. R. Shepley & Geraint Rees (2012). Evaluating Interventions in Health: A Reconciliatory Approach. Bioethics 26 (9):455-463.
    Health-related Quality of Life measures have recently been attacked from two directions, both of which criticize the preference-based method of evaluating health states they typically incorporate. One attack, based on work by Daniel Kahneman and others, argues that ‘experience’ is a better basis for evaluation. The other, inspired by Amartya Sen, argues that ‘capability’ should be the guiding concept. In addition, opinion differs as to whether health evaluation measures are best derived from consultations with the general public, with patients, or (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Erin Conrad & Sarah Jl Edwards (2011). Inequalities and Fairness in Cluster Trials. Research Ethics 7 (2):58-65.
    Cluster randomized controlled trials (cluster RCTs) randomize whole clusters of individuals in testing two or more competing interventions. Here we will present the ethical problems raised by cluster RCTs concerning their effect on inequality. We argue that some inequalities generated by cluster RCTs are larger in scope than those generated from individual RCTs. We also argue that any cluster RCT-generated inequalities, which divide groups rather than individuals, are more problematic in type than the inequalities created in individual RCTs. These concerns (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Sarah J. L. Edwards (2011). Assessing the Remedy: The Case for Contracts in Clinical Trials. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):3-12.
    Current orthodoxy in research ethics assumes that subjects of clinical trials reserve rights to withdraw at any time and without giving any reason. This view sees the right to withdraw as a simple extension of the right to refuse to participate all together. In this paper, however, I suggest that subjects should assume some responsibilities for the internal validity of the trial at consent and that these responsibilities should be captured by contract. This would allow the researcher to impose a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Sarah J. L. Edwards (2011). Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Assessing the Remedy: The Case for Contracts in Clinical Trials”. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):W1-W3.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Sarah Jl Edwards (2011). Consensus on the Census? Research Ethics 7 (2):33-36.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Sarah Jl Edwards (2011). Editor's Choice Issue 2, 2011. Research Ethics 7 (2):37-38.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Sarah Jl Edwards (2011). The Role, Remit and Function of the Research Ethics Committee — 5. Collective Decision-Making and Research Ethics Committees. Research Ethics 7 (1):19-23.
    Part 5, the concluding essay in the series describing and discussing the role, remit and function of research ethics committees, bases an enquiry into the nature of decision-making by research ethics committees on the processes followed by the committees in their deliberations leading to the final outcome.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. David Hunter & Sarah Edwards (2011). New Beginnings. Research Ethics 7 (1):1-3.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Sarah J. L. Edwards (2006). Restricted Treatments, Inducements, and Research Participation. Bioethics 20 (2):77–91.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Sarah J. L. Edwards (2005). Research Participation and the Right to Withdraw. Bioethics 19 (2):112–130.
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Sarah J. L. Edwards, Richard Ashcroft & Simon Kirchin (2004). Research Ethics Committees: Differences and Moral Judgement. Bioethics 18 (5):408–427.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation