Search results for 'Stephen R. Napier' (try it on Scholar)

21 found
Sort by:
See also:
  1. Joseph A. Bulbulia, Kristen Kingfield Kearns, Ilsup Ahn, Peter Forrest, Stephen R. Napier, Graeme Marshall & Patrick Hutchings (2003). Book Reviews. [REVIEW] Sophia 42 (1):125-126.score: 870.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Stephen Napier (2013). Challenging Research on Human Subjects: Justice and Uncompensated Harms. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34 (1):29-51.score: 240.0
    Ethical challenges to certain aspects of research on human subjects are not uncommon; examples include challenges to first-in-human trials (Chapman in J Clin Res Bioethics 2(4):1–8, 2011), certain placebo controlled trials (Anderson in J Med Philos 31:65–81, 2006; Anderson and Kimmelman in Kennedy Inst Ethics J 20(1):75–98, 2010) and “sham” surgery (Macklin in N Engl J Med 341:992–996, 1999). To date, however, there are few challenges to research when the subjects are competent and the research is more than minimal risk (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Stephen Napier (2013). The U.S. Regulations and the Protection of Pediatric Subjects. Journal of Clinical Research and Bioethics 4 (1).score: 240.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Stephen Napier (ed.) (2011). Persons, Moral Worth, and Embryos: A Critical Analysis of Pro-Choice Arguments. Springer.score: 240.0
    Given the issues discussed and that the arguments in critical focus are fairly new, the collection provides a novel, comprehensive, and rigorous analysis of contemporary pro-choice arguments.”.
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Stephen Napier (2010). Vulnerable Embryos. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 84 (4):781-810.score: 240.0
    Contemporary philosophical discussion on human embryonic stem cell research has focused primarily on the metaphysical and meta-ethical issues suchresearch raises. Though these discussions are interesting, largely ignored are arguments rooted in the secular research ethics tradition already informing humansubject research. This tradition countenances the notion of vulnerability and that vulnerable human subjects (of which human embryos are likely members)ought to be protected from research-related harms. This is the basic idea behind the argument from vulnerability, and it enjoys prima facie plausibility. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Stephen Napier (2011). Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (8):60-61.score: 240.0
    The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 11, Issue 8, Page 60-61, August 2011.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Stephen Napier (2012). The Dead Donor Rule and Means-End Reasoning. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 21 (01):134-140.score: 240.0
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. A. Costello, M. Abbas, A. Allen, S. Ball, S. Bell, R. Bellamy, S. Friel, N. Groce, A. Johnson, M. Kett, M. Lee, C. Levy, M. Maslin, D. McCoy, B. McGuire, H. Montgomery, D. Napier, C. Pagel, J. Patel, J. Oliveira, N. Redclift, H. Rees, D. Rogger, J. Scott, J. Stephenson, J. Twigg, J. Wolff & C. Patterson, Managing the Health Effects of Climate.score: 240.0
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Stephen Napier (2013). Brain Death, Souls, and Integrated Functioning: Reply to Verheijde and Potts. Christian Bioethics 19 (1):25-39.score: 240.0
    Recently, Verheijde and Potts (2011) have called into question the whole-brain death (WBD) criterion and, in particular, have taken issue with my admittedly limited defense of WBD. I would like to thank Verheijde and Potts for their comments and for identifying key points in the debate that need further clarification and defense. This article is an attempt to provide such clarification and to focus on Verheijde and Potts’s key argument against me and other proponents of WBD. The structure of this (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Stephen Napier (2013). Twinning, Identity, and Moral Status. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (1):42-43.score: 240.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Stephen Napier (2008). Twinning, Substance, and Identity Through Time: A Reply to McMahan. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 8 (2):255-264.score: 240.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Stephen Napier (2011). Catholic Hospitals, Institutional Review Boards, and Cooperation. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 11 (2):257-266.score: 240.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Stephen Napier (2002). Is Rowe Committed to an Expanded Version of Theism? Sophia 41 (2):31-40.score: 240.0
    I argue in this paper two theses. First, I argue that the internal consistency of the argument from evil demands that it take into account some form of EST. Thus, there is no ground for the atheist to chide the theist when the theist appeals to an expanded version of theism. Second, I show that it isprima facie probable that RST does in fact ential EST. I show this by capitalizing on the distinction between what is contained in a concept (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Stephen Napier (2013). Reproductive Ethics: Adaequatio and Dialogical Virtues. Journal of Clinical Research and Bioethics 1 (S1).score: 240.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Stephen J. Bromage, Iain G. McIntyre, Richard D. Napier‐Hemy, Stephen R. Payne & Ian Pearce (2007). Tailoring Urological Outpatient Services to Patient Choice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 13 (3):476-479.score: 87.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Ardith A. Eudey (1987). Hybrid History The Natural History of the Primates J. R. Napier P. H. Napier. Bioscience 37 (10):733-734.score: 84.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Guy Axtell (2009). Review of Stephen Napier, Virtue Epistemology: Motivation and Knowledge. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2009 (7).score: 78.0
    A Review of S. Napiers, book Virtue Epistemology. While concerned with the nature of knowledge, Napier also wants to claim that a key implication of responsibilist VE is “a shift away from analyzing epistemic concepts (knowledge, etc.) in terms of other epistemic concepts (e.g. justification) to analyzing epistemic concepts with reference to kinds of human activity…much of analytic epistemology centers on epistemic concepts, whereas the responsibilist focuses on epistemic activity” (144).Of the main points he claims responsibilism provides us with—(i) (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. C. W. Gowans (2010). Virtue Epistemology: Motivation and Knowledge * by Stephen Napier. Analysis 70 (3):589-591.score: 72.0
    (No abstract is available for this citation).
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. J. R. Rayfield (1988). Book Reviews : Masks, Transformation and Paradox. By David Napier. University of California Press, 1986. Pp. Xxvi + 282. $40.00 (U.S. [REVIEW] Philosophy of the Social Sciences 18 (4):569-572.score: 24.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Simone Degeling (2002). A New Reason for Restitution: The Policy Against Accumulation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22 (3):435-461.score: 24.0
    The law of unjust enrichment admits a novel policy motivated unjust factor called the policy against accumulation. This applies where a claimant (R) receives a benefit, or has the right to recover a debt or damages from another party (X), and receives or has the right to receive value in respect of the same debt or damage from a third party (Y). The claimant is rarely permitted to retain both the transfers made by X and Y. In other words, R (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Joseph L. Verheijde & Michael Potts (2010). Commentary on the Concept of Brain Death Within the Catholic Bioethical Framework. Christian Bioethics 16 (3):246-256.score: 24.0
    Since the introduction of the concept of brain death by the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death in 1968, the validity of this concept has been challenged by medical scientists, as well as by legal, philosophical, and religious scholars. In light of increased criticism of the concept of brain death, Stephen Napier, a staff ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, set out to prove that the whole-brain death criterion (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation