Search results for 'benefit' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  37
    Franklin G. Miller & Luana Colloca (2011). The Placebo Phenomenon and Medical Ethics: Rethinking the Relationship Between Informed Consent and Risk–Benefit Assessment. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32 (4):229-243.
    It has been presumed within bioethics that the benefits and risks of treatments can be assessed independently of information disclosure to patients as part of the informed consent process. Research on placebo and nocebo effects indicates that this is not true for symptomatic treatments. The benefits and risks that patients experience from symptomatic treatments can be shaped powerfully by information about these treatments provided by clinicians. In this paper we discuss the implications of placebo and nocebo research for risk–benefit (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  2.  12
    Robert Sugden (2015). Team Reasoning and Intentional Cooperation for Mutual Benefit. Journal of Social Ontology 1 (1):143–166.
    This paper proposes a concept of intentional cooperation for mutual benefit. This concept uses a form of team reasoning in which team members aim to achieve common interests, rather than maximising a common utility function, and in which team reasoners can coordinate their behaviour by following pre-existing practices. I argue that a market transaction can express intentions for mutually beneficial cooperation even if, extensionally, participation in the transaction promotes each party’s self-interest.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  52
    Bege Dauda & Kris Dierickx (2013). Benefit Sharing: An Exploration on the Contextual Discourse of a Changing Concept. [REVIEW] BMC Medical Ethics 14 (1):36.
    The concept of benefit sharing has been a topical issue on the international stage for more than two decades, gaining prominence in international law, research ethics and political philosophy. In spite of this prominence, the concept of benefit sharing is not devoid of controversies related to its definition and justification. This article examines the discourses and justifications of benefit sharing concept.
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4.  13
    Janine S. Hiller (2013). The Benefit Corporation and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 118 (2):287-301.
    In the wake of the most recent financial crisis, corporations have been criticized as being self-interested and unmindful of their relationship to society. Indeed, the blame is sometimes placed on the corporate legal form, which can exacerbate the tension between duties to shareholders and interests of stakeholders. In comparison, the Benefit Corporation (BC) is a new legal business entity that is obligated to pursue public benefit in addition to the responsibility to return profits to shareholders. It is legally (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  5.  22
    Bram De Jonge (2011). What is Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (2):127-146.
    “Fair and equitable benefit-sharing” is one of the objectives of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. In essence, benefit-sharing holds that countries, farmers, and indigenous communities that grant access to their plant genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge should share in the benefits that users derive from these resources. But what exactly is understood by “fair” and “equitable” in this context? Neither term is defined in the (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  6.  11
    Yongqiang Gao (2011). Government Intervention, Perceived Benefit, and Bribery of Firms in Transitional China. Journal of Business Ethics 104 (2):175-184.
    This article examines whether (1) government intervention causes bribery (or corruption) as rent-seeking theory suggested; (2) a firm’s perceived benefit partially mediates the relationship between government intervention and its bribing behavior, as rational choice/behavior theory suggested; and (3) other firms’ bribing behavior moderates the relationship between government intervention and a firm’s perceived benefit. Our study shows that government intervention causes bribery/corruption indeed, but it exerts its effect on bribery/corruption through the firm’s perceived benefit. In other words, a (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  7. Donald C. Hubin (1994). The Moral Justification of Benefit/Cost Analysis. Economics and Philosophy 10 (2):169.
    Some have attempted to justify benefit/ cost analysis by appealing to a moral theory that appears to directly ground the technique. This approach is unsuccessful because the moral theory in question is wildly implausible and, even if it were correct, it would probably not endorse the unrestricted use of benefit/ cost analysis. Nevertheless, there is reason to think that a carefully restricted use of benefit/ cost analysis will be justifiable from a wide variety of plausible moral perspectives. (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  8.  16
    Rae André (2012). Assessing the Accountability of the Benefit Corporation: Will This New Gray Sector Organization Enhance Corporate Social Responsibility? [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 110 (1):133-150.
    In recent years the benefit corporation has emerged as a new organizational form dedicated to legitimizing the pursuit of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Eschewing traditional governmental authority, the benefit corporation derives its moral legitimacy from the values of its owners and the oversight of a third party evaluator. This research identifies the benefit corporation as a new type of gray sector organization (GSO) and applies extant theory on GSOs to analyze its design. In particular, it shows how (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  9.  17
    Alex Rajczi (2004). Making Risk-Benefit Assessments of Medical Research Protocols. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 32 (2):338-348.
    An axiom of medical research ethics is that a protocol is moral only if it has a “favorable risk-benefit ratio”. This axiom is usually interpreted in the following way: a medical research protocol is moral only if it has a positive expected value—that is, if it is likely to do more good (to both subjects and society) than harm. I argue that, thus interpreted, the axiom has two problems. First, it is unusable, because it requires us to know more (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  4
    Spencer Phillips Hey & Jonathan Kimmelman (2016). Do We Know Whether Researchers and Reviewers Are Estimating Risk and Benefit Accurately? Bioethics 30 (5).
    Accurate estimation of risk and benefit is integral to good clinical research planning, ethical review, and study implementation. Some commentators have argued that various actors in clinical research systems are prone to biased or arbitrary risk/benefit estimation. In this commentary, we suggest the evidence supporting such claims is very limited. Most prior work has imputed risk/benefit beliefs based on past behavior or goals, rather than directly measuring them. We describe an approach – forecast analysis – that would (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  2
    Sarah A. Laird & Rachel P. Wynberg (2016). Locating Responsible Research and Innovation Within Access and Benefit Sharing Spaces of the Convention on Biological Diversity: The Challenge of Emerging Technologies. NanoEthics 10 (2):189-200.
    This paper reviews the location of Responsible Research and Innovation approaches within the access and benefit sharing policy spaces of the Convention on Biological Diversity and Nagoya Protocol. We describe how a range of dialogues on ethical research practices found a home, almost inadvertently, within the ABS policy process. However, more recent RRI dialogues around emerging technologies have not been similarly absorbed into ABS policy, due in part to the original framing of ABS and associated definitional and scope issues. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  14
    Alan Wertheimer (2013). Is Payment a Benefit? Bioethics 27 (2):105-116.
    What I call ‘the standard view’ claims that IRBs should not regard financial payment as a benefit to subjects for the purpose of risk/benefit assessment. Although the standard view is universally accepted, there is little defense of that view in the canonical documents of research ethics or the scholarly literature. This paper claims that insofar as IRBs should be concerned with the interests and autonomy of research subjects, they should reject the standard view and adopt ‘the incorporation view.’ (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  13.  6
    Bege Dauda, Yvonne Denier & Kris Dierickx (forthcoming). What Do the Various Principles of Justice Mean Within the Concept of Benefit Sharing? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry:1-13.
    The concept of benefit sharing pertains to the act of giving something in return to the participants, communities, and the country that have participated in global health research or bioprospecting activities. One of the key concerns of benefit sharing is the ethical justifications or reasons to support the practice of the concept in global health research and bioprospecting. This article evaluates one of such ethical justifications and its meaning to benefit sharing, namely justice. We conducted a systematic (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  10
    Georg Spielthenner (2012). Risk-Benefit Analysis: From a Logical Point of View. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9 (2):161-170.
    In this paper I am concerned with risk–benefit analysis; that is, the comparison of the risks of a situation to its related benefits. We all face such situations in our daily lives and they are very common in medicine too, where risk–benefit analysis has become an important tool for rational decision-making. This paper explores risk–benefit analysis from a logical point of view. In particular, it seeks a better understanding of the common view that decisions should be made (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  15.  27
    Petter Næss (2006). Cost-Benefit Analyses of Transportation Investments — Neither Critical nor Realistic. Journal of Critical Realism 5 (1):32-60.
    This paper discusses the practice of cost-benefit analyses of transportation infrastructure investment projects from the meta-theoretical perspective of critical realism. Such analyses are based on a number of untenable ontological assumptions about social value, human nature and the natural environment. In addition, main input data are based on transport modelling analyses based on a misleading `local ontology' among the model makers. The ontological misconceptions translate into erroneous epistemological assumptions about the possibility of precise predictions and the validity of willingness-to-pay (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  16.  2
    Spencer Phillips Hey & Jonathan Kimmelman (2016). Do We Know Whether Researchers and Reviewers Are Estimating Risk and Benefit Accurately? Bioethics 30 (7).
    Accurate estimation of risk and benefit is integral to good clinical research planning, ethical review, and study implementation. Some commentators have argued that various actors in clinical research systems are prone to biased or arbitrary risk/benefit estimation. In this commentary, we suggest the evidence supporting such claims is very limited. Most prior work has imputed risk/benefit beliefs based on past behavior or goals, rather than directly measuring them. We describe an approach – forecast analysis – that would (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  2
    Daniel J. Hurst (2016). Benefit Sharing in a Global Context: Working Towards Solutions for Implementation. Developing World Bioethics 16 (2).
    Due to the state of globalized clinical research, questions have been raised as to what, if any, benefits those who contribute to research should receive. One model for compensating research participants is “benefit sharing,” and the basic premise is that, as a matter of justice, those who contribute to scientific research should share in its benefits. While incorporated into several international documents for over two decades, benefit sharing has only been sparsely implemented. This analysis begins by addressing the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18.  10
    Alex Rajczi (2004). Making Risk-Benefit Assessments of Medical Research Protocols. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32 (2):338-348.
    An axiom of medical research ethics is that a protocol is moral only if it has a “favorable risk-benefit ratio”. This axiom is usually interpreted in the following way: a medical research protocol is moral only if it has a positive expected value -- that is, if it is likely to do more good (to both subjects and society) than harm. I argue that, thus interpreted, the axiom has two problems. First, it is unusable, because it requires us to (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  19.  15
    Eric Chwang (2010). Against Risk-Benefit Review of Prisoner Research. Bioethics 24 (1):14-22.
    The 2006 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, 'Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners', recommended five main changes to current US Common Rule regulations on prisoner research. Their third recommendation was to shift from a category-based to a risk-benefit approach to research review, similar to current guidelines on pediatric research. However, prisoners are not children, so risk-benefit constraints on prisoner research must be justified in a different way from those on pediatric research. In this paper I argue that additional (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  3
    Johannes J. M. Van Delden Rosemarie D. L. C. Bernabe, Ghislaine J. M. W. Van Thiel, Jan A. M. Raaijmakers (2012). The Risk-Benefit Task of Research Ethics Committees: An Evaluation of Current Approaches and the Need to Incorporate Decision Studies Methods. [REVIEW] BMC Medical Ethics 13 (1):6.
    BackgroundResearch ethics committees (RECs) are tasked to assess the risks and the benefits of a trial. Currently, two procedure-level approaches are predominant, the Net Risk Test and the Component Analysis.DiscussionBy looking at decision studies, we see that both procedure-level approaches conflate the various risk-benefit tasks, i.e., risk-benefit assessment, risk-benefit evaluation, risk treatment, and decision making. This conflation makes the RECs’ risk-benefit task confusing, if not impossible. We further realize that RECs are not meant to do all (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. Alex Voorhoeve (2014). Review of Matthew D. Adler: Well-Being and Fair Distribution. Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis. [REVIEW] Social Choice and Welfare 42 (1):245-54.
    In this extended book review, I summarize Adler's views and critically analyze his key arguments on the measurement of well-being and the foundations of prioritarianism.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  7
    Fatima Alvarez-castillo & Dafna Feinholz (2006). Women in Developing Countries and Benefit Sharing. Developing World Bioethics 6 (3):113–121.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  23.  17
    Bram de Jonge & Michiel Korthals (2006). Vicissitudes of Benefit Sharing of Crop Genetic Resources: Downstream and Upstream. Developing World Bioethics 6 (3):144–157.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  24.  5
    Paul W. Andrews (2006). Parent-Offspring Conflict and Cost-Benefit Analysis in Adolescent Suicidal Behavior. Human Nature 17 (2):190-211.
    Data on birth order and parent-offspring relations for 1,601 adolescents participating in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health were used to test hypotheses about the role of adolescent suicidal behavior in parent-offspring conflict. Among adolescents highly dissatisfied with their mothers, the odds that middleborns would make at least one suicide attempt was 23% that of first- and lastborns (p<.001), but their odds of receiving medical treatment for their attempts was 8.5 times greater than the odds for first- and lastborns (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  25.  13
    Udo Schüklenk & Anita Kleinsmidt (2006). North–South Benefit Sharing Arrangements in Bioprospecting and Genetic Research: A Critical Ethical and Legal Analysis. Developing World Bioethics 6 (3):122–134.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  26.  15
    Udo Schuklenk & Anita Kleinsmidt (2006). North–South Benefit Sharing Arrangements in Bioprospecting and Genetic Research: A Critical Ethical and Legal Analysis. Developing World Bioethics 6 (3):060814034439002-???.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  2
    Rainu Kaushal, Rina Dhopeshwarkar, Lawrence Gottlieb & Harmon Jordan (2010). User Experiences with Pharmacy Benefit Manager Data at the Point of Care. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16 (6):1076-1080.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. Per Algander (2013). Harm, Benefit, and Non-Identity. Dissertation, Uppsala University
    This thesis in an invistigation into the concept of "harm" and its moral relevance. A common view is that an analysis of harm should include a counterfactual condition: an act harms a person iff it makes that person worse off. A common objection to the moral relevance of harm, thus understood, is the non-identity problem. -/- This thesis criticises the counterfactual condition, argues for an alternative analysis and that harm plays two important normative roles. -/- The main ground for rejecting (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. Per Algander (2013). Harm, Benefit, and Non-Identity. Dissertation, Uppsala University
    This thesis in an invistigation into the concept of "harm" and its moral relevance. A common view is that an analysis of harm should include a counterfactual condition: an act harms a person iff it makes that person worse off. A common objection to the moral relevance of harm, thus understood, is the non-identity problem. -/- This thesis criticises the counterfactual condition, argues for an alternative analysis and that harm plays two important normative roles. -/- The main ground for rejecting (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Per Algander (2013). Harm, Benefit, and Non-Identity. Dissertation, Uppsala University
    This thesis in an invistigation into the concept of "harm" and its moral relevance. A common view is that an analysis of harm should include a counterfactual condition: an act harms a person iff it makes that person worse off. A common objection to the moral relevance of harm, thus understood, is the non-identity problem. -/- This thesis criticises the counterfactual condition, argues for an alternative analysis and that harm plays two important normative roles. -/- The main ground for rejecting (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Chrisoula Andreou (2012). Add to Cart: Environmental ‘Amenities’ and Cost-Benefit Analysis. In Michael O'Rourke and Matthew H. Slater William P. Kabasenche (ed.), The Environment, vol. 9 of Topics in Contemporary Philosophy.
  32. Brian E. Butler (2010). Cass Sunstein, John Dewey and the Cost-Benefit State. Soundings 93 (1-2):95-116.
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33.  48
    Janet Malek & Judith Daar (2012). The Case for a Parental Duty to Use Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis for Medical Benefit. American Journal of Bioethics 12 (4):3-11.
    This article explores the possibility that there is a parental duty to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for the medical benefit of future children. Using one genetic disorder as a paradigmatic example, we find that such a duty can be supported in some situations on both ethical and legal grounds. Our analysis shows that an ethical case in favor of this position can be made when potential parents are aware that a possible future child is at substantial risk of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  34. Maria Rosa Antognazza (2015). The Benefit to Philosophy of the Study of its History. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 23 (1):161-184.
    This paper advances the view that the history of philosophy is both a kind of history and a kind of philosophy. Through a discussion of some examples from epistemology, metaphysics, and the historiography of philosophy, it explores the benefit to philosophy of a deep and broad engagement with its history. It comes to the conclusion that doing history of philosophy is a way to think outside the box of the current philosophical orthodoxies. Somewhat paradoxically, far from imprisoning its students (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  1
    John W. Selsky & Barbara Parker (2010). Platforms for Cross-Sector Social Partnerships: Prospective Sensemaking Devices for Social Benefit. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 94 (1):21 - 37.
    Cross-sector social partnerships (CSSPs) can produce benefits at individual, organizational, sectoral and societal levels. In this article, we argue that the distribution of benefits depends in part on the cognitive frames held by partnership participants. Based on Selsky and Parker's (J Manage 31(6):849-873, 2005) review of CSSPs, we identify three analytic "platforms" for social partnerships — the resource-dependence platform, the social-issue platform, and the societal-sector platform. We situate platforms as prospective sensemaking devices that help project managers make sense of partnerships (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  36.  14
    Celia B. Fisher, Susan Z. Kornetsky & Ernest D. Prentice (2007). Determining Risk in Pediatric Research with No Prospect of Direct Benefit: Time for a National Consensus on the Interpretation of Federal Regulations. American Journal of Bioethics 7 (3):5 – 10.
    United States federal regulations for pediatric research with no prospect of direct benefit restrict institutional review board (IRB) approval to procedures presenting: 1) no more than "minimal risk" (§ 45CFR46.404); or 2) no more than a "minor increase over minimal risk" if the research is commensurate with the subjects' previous or expected experiences and intended to gain vitally important information about the child's disorder or condition (§ 45CFR46.406) (DHHS 2001). During the 25 years since their adoption, these regulations have (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  37.  18
    David Wendler (2012). A New Justification for Pediatric Research Without the Potential for Clinical Benefit. American Journal of Bioethics 12 (1):23 - 31.
    Pediatric research without the potential for clinical benefit is vital to improving pediatric medical care. This research also raises ethical concern and is regarded by courts and commentators as unethical. While at least 10 justifications have been proposed in response, all have fundamental limitations. This article describes and defends a new justification based on the fact that enrollment in clinical research offers children the opportunity to contribute to a valuable project. Contributing as children to valuable projects can benefit (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  38.  47
    Brett Calcott (2008). The Other Cooperation Problem: Generating Benefit. Biology and Philosophy 23 (2):179-203.
    Understanding how cooperation evolves is central to explaining some core features of our biological world. Many important evolutionary events, such as the arrival of multicellularity or the origins of eusociality, are cooperative ventures between formerly solitary individuals. Explanations of the evolution of cooperation have primarily involved showing how cooperation can be maintained in the face of free-riding individuals whose success gradually undermines cooperation. In this paper I argue that there is a second, distinct, and less well explored, problem of cooperation (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  39.  66
    Sven Ove Hansson (2007). Philosophical Problems in Cost–Benefit Analysis. Economics and Philosophy 23 (2):163-183.
    Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is much more philosophically interesting than has in general been recognized. Since it is the only well-developed form of applied consequentialism, it is a testing-ground for consequentialism and for the counterfactual analysis that it requires. Ten classes of philosophical problems that affect the practical performance of cost–benefit analysis are investigated: topic selection, dependence on the decision perspective, dangers of super synopticism and undue centralization, prediction problems, the indeterminateness of our control over future decisions, the need (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  40. Brad Hooker (1996). Does Moral Virtue Constitute a Benefit to the Agent? In Roger Crisp (ed.), How Should one Live? Oxford University Press
    Theories of individual well‐being fall into three main categories: hedonism, the desire‐fulfilment theory, and the list theory (which maintains that there are some things that can benefit a person without increasing the person's pleasure or desire‐fulfilment). The paper briefly explains the answers that hedonism and the desire‐fulfilment theory give to the question of whether being virtuous constitutes a benefit to the agent. Most of the paper is about the list theory's answer.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  41.  8
    Doris Schroeder & Eugenijus Gefenas (2011). Realizing Benefit Sharing – the Case of Post-Study Obligations. Bioethics 26 (6):305-314.
    In 2006, the Indonesian government decided to withhold avian flu samples from the World Health Organization. They argued that even though Indonesian samples were crucial to the development of vaccines, the results of vaccine research would be unaffordable for its citizens. Commentaries on the case varied from alleging blackmail to welcoming this strong stance against alleged exploitation. What is clear is that the concern expressed is related to benefit sharing.Benefit sharing requires resource users to return benefits to resource (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  42.  22
    Robert C. Hughes (2014). Justifying Community Benefit Requirements in International Research. Bioethics 28 (8):397-404.
    It is widely agreed that foreign sponsors of research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are morally required to ensure that their research benefits the broader host community. There is no agreement, however, about how much benefit or what type of benefit research sponsors must provide, nor is there agreement about what group of people is entitled to benefit. To settle these questions, it is necessary to examine why research sponsors have an obligation to benefit the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  43. Annette Rid & David Wendler (2011). A Framework for Risk-Benefit Evaluations in Biomedical Research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 21 (2):141-179.
    One of the key ethical requirements for biomedical research is that it have an acceptable risk-benefit profile (Emanuel, Wendler, and Grady 2000). The International Conference of Harmonization guidelines mandate that clinical trials should be initiated and continued only if “the anticipated benefits justify the risks” (1996). Guidelines from the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences state that biomedical research is acceptable only if the “potential benefits and risks are reasonably balanced” (2002). U.S. federal regulations require that the “risks (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  44.  40
    Nicola Pless & Thomas Maak (2009). Responsible Leaders as Agents of World Benefit: Learnings From "Project Ulysses". [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 85 (1):59 - 71.
    There is widespread agreement in both business and society that MNCs have an enormous potential for contributing to the betterment of the world (WBCSD: 2006, From Challenge to Opportunity, in L. Timberlake (ed.), A paper from the Tomorrow's Leaders Group of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development). In fact, a discussion has evolved around the role of "Business as an Agent of World Benefit."¹ At the same time, there is also growing willingness among business leaders to spend time, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  45. David Wendler & Emily Abdoler (2011). Does It Matter Whether Investigators Intend to Benefit Research Subjects? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (4):353-370.
    It is widely agreed that clinical research should satisfy a number of ethical requirements. These include requirements to address a valuable question, to select subjects fairly, and to pose appropriate risks. In contrast, there remains considerable debate over the ethical relevance of investigator intentions: Does it matter ethically whether investigators intend to collect generalizable knowledge or to benefit subjects, or both? Some commentators do not mention investigator intentions when evaluating what makes clinical research ethical (Emanuel, Wendler, and Grady 2000). (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  13
    Mona Simion (2016). Perception, History and Benefit. Episteme 13 (1):61-76.
    In recent literature, several authors attempt to naturalize epistemic normativity by employing an etiological account of functions. The thought is that epistemic entitlement consists in the normal functioning of our belief-acquisition systems, where the latter acquire the function to reliably deliver true beliefs through a history of biological benefit.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  21
    Robert M. Veatch (2000). Doctor Does Not Know Best: Why in the New Century Physicians Must Stop Trying to Benefit Patients. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (6):701 – 721.
    While twentieth-century medical ethics has focused on the duty of physicians to benefit their patients, the next century will see that duty challenged in three ways. First, we will increasingly recognize that it is unrealistic to expect physicians to be able to determine what will benefit their patients. Either they limit their attention to medical well-being when total well-being is the proper end of the patient or they strive for total well-being, which takes them beyond their expertise. Even (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  48.  3
    Robert E. Goodin & Avia Pasternak (2016). Intending to Benefit From Wrongdoing. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 15 (3):280-297.
    Some believe that the mere beneficiaries of wrongdoing of others ought to disgorge their tainted benefits. Others deny that claim. Both sides of this debate concentrate on unavoidable beneficiaries of the wrongdoing of others, who are presumed themselves to be innocent by virtue of the fact they have neither contributed to the wrong nor could they have avoided receiving the benefit. But as we show, this presumption is mistaken for unavoidable beneficiaries who intend in certain ways to benefit (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  23
    Cecilia Nardini (2013). Monitoring in Clinical Trials: Benefit or Bias? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34 (4):259-274.
    Monitoring ongoing clinical trials for early signs of effectiveness is an option for improving cost-effectiveness of trials that is becoming increasingly common. Alongside the obvious advantages made possible by monitoring, however, there are some downsides. In particular, there is growing concern in the medical community that trials stopped early for benefit tend to overestimate treatment effect. In this paper, I examine this problem from the point of view of statistical methodology, starting from the observation that the overestimation is caused (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  50.  9
    Thomas Alured Faunce & Hitoshi Nasu (2009). Normative Foundations of Technology Transfer and Transnational Benefit Principles in the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34 (3):296-321.
    The United Nations Scientific, Education and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UDBHR) expresses in its title and substance a controversial linkage of two normative systems: international human rights law and bioethics. The UDBHR has the status of what is known as a ‘non-binding’ declaration under public international law. The UDBHR’s normative foundation within bioethics (and association, for example, with virtue-based or principlist bioethical theories) is more problematic. Nonetheless, the UDBHR contains socially important principles of technology (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000