Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. A Second Look at Debriefing Practices: Madness in Our Method?Cathy Faye & Donald Sharpe - 2009 - Ethics and Behavior 19 (5):432-447.
    This article is a reconsideration of Tesch's (1977) ethical, educational, and methodological functions for debriefing through a literature review and an Internet survey of authors of articles published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and Journal of Traumatic Stress . We advocate for a larger ethical role for debriefing in nondeception research. The educational function of debriefing is examined in light of the continued popularity of undergraduate participant pools. A case is made for the methodological function of debriefing (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Does Informed Consent Have an Expiry Date? A Critical Reappraisal of Informed Consent as a Process.Gert Helgesson & Stefan Eriksson - 2011 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20 (1):85-92.
    Informed consent is central to modern research ethics. Informed consent procedures have mainly been justified in terms of respect for autonomy, the core idea being that it should be every competent individual’s right to decide for herself whether or not to participate in scientific studies. A number of conditions are normally raised with regard to morally valid informed consent. These include that potential research subjects get adequate information, understand those aspects that are relevant to them, and, based on that information, (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Autonomy, the Right Not to Know, and the Right to Know Personal Research Results: What Rights Are There, and Who Should Decide about Exceptions?Gert Helgesson - 2014 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 42 (1):28-37.
    This paper defends the right not to know personal health information, while it discards the right of research participants to receive individual research results. Disagreement regarding the right not to know stems from two different conceptions of autonomy, leading to opposing normative conclusions. Researchers occasionally have good reason to inform research participants about incidental findings in spite of the absence of a right to know such information. Such decisions have to be made by health care personnel and researchers on a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Autonomy, the Right Not to Know, and the Right to Know Personal Research Results: What Rights are There, and Who Should Decide about Exceptions?Gert Helgesson - 2014 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 42 (1):28-37.
    Bioethicists have for quite some time discussed the right to know and the right not to know personal health information, such as genetic information acquired in health care and incidental health-related findings in research. Several international ethical guidelines explicitly defend these rights.My own interest in these matters stems from my participation in ethics-related research tied to a longitudinal screening study on Type I diabetes involving young children. A few of the participating parents did not want to be informed if the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations