Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Clinical Equipoise and Adaptive Clinical Trials.Nicolas Fillion - 2019 - Topoi 38 (2):457-467.
    Ethically permissible clinical trials must not expose subjects to risks that are unreasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. In the research ethics literature, this moral requirement is typically understood in one of two different ways: as requiring the existence of a state of clinical equipoise, meaning a state of honest, professional disagreement among the community of experts about the preferred treatment; or as requiring an equilibrium between individual and collective ethics. It has been maintained that this second interpretation makes it (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Should Desperate Volunteers Be Included in Randomised Controlled Trials?P. Allmark - 2006 - Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (9):548-553.
    Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) sometimes recruit participants who are desperate to receive the experimental treatment. This paper defends the practice against three arguements that suggest it is unethical first, desperate volunteers are not in equipoise. Second clinicians, entering patients onto trials are disavowing their therapeutic obligation to deliver the best treatment; they are following trial protocols rather than delivering individualised care. Research is not treatment; its ethical justification is different. Consent is crucial. Third, desperate volunteers do not give proper consent: (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Weighing Risks and Benefits.Sven Ove Hansson - 2004 - Topoi 23 (2):145-152.
    It is almost universally acknowledged that risks have to be weighed against benefits, but there are different ways to perform the weighing. In conventional risk analysis, collectivist risk-weighing is the standard. This means that an option is accepted if the sum of all individual benefits outweighs the sum of all individual risks. In practices originating in clinical medicine, such as ethical appraisals of clinical trials, individualist risk-weighing is the standard. This implies a much stricter criterion for risk acceptance, namely that (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • At What Degree of Belief in a Research Hypothesis is a Trial in Humans Justified?Benjamin Djulbegovic & Iztok Hozo - 2002 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 8 (2):269-276.
  • Human Subjects Protections in Biomedical Enhancement Research: Assessing Risk and Benefit and Obtaining Informed Consent.Maxwell J. Mehlman & Jessica W. Berg - 2008 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (3):546-549.
    The protection of human subjects in biomedical research relies on two principal mechanisms: assessing and comparing the risks and potential benefits of proposed research, and obtaining potential subjects' informed consent. While these have been discussed extensively in the literature, no attention has been paid to whether the processes should be different when the objective of an experimental biomedical intervention is to improve individual appearance, performance, or capability rather than to prevent, cure, or mitigate disease . This essay examines this question (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Human Subjects Protections in Biomedical Enhancement Research: Assessing Risk and Benefit and Obtaining Informed Consent.Maxwell J. Mehlman & Jessica W. Berg - 2008 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (3):546-559.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations