60 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Paul S. Appelbaum [56]Paul Appelbaum [10]
  1.  1
    Patients’ Beliefs About Deep Brain Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Depression.Ryan E. Lawrence, Catharine R. Kaufmann, Ravi B. DeSilva & Paul S. Appelbaum - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 9 (4):210-218.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  2.  15
    False Hopes and Best Data: Consent to Research and the Therapeutic Misconception.Paul S. Appelbaum, Loren H. Roth, Charles W. Lidz, Paul Benson & William Winslade - 1987 - Hastings Center Report 17 (2):20-24.
  3.  8
    The Precision Medicine Nation.Maya Sabatello & Paul S. Appelbaum - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (4):19-29.
    The United States’ ambitious Precision Medicine Initiative proposes to accelerate exponentially the adoption of precision medicine, an approach to health care that tailors disease diagnosis, treatment, and prevention to individual variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle. It aims to achieve this by creating a cohort of volunteers for precision medicine research, accelerating biomedical research innovation, and adopting policies geared toward patients’ empowerment. As strategies to implement the PMI are formulated, critical consideration of the initiative's ethical and sociopolitical dimensions is needed. (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  4.  34
    Voluntariness of Consent to Research: A Conceptual Model.Paul S. Appelbaum, Charles W. Lidz & Robert Klitzman - 2009 - Hastings Center Report 39 (1):30-39.
    Voluntariness of consent to research has not been sufficiently explored through empirical research. The aims of this study were to develop a more comprehensive approach to assessing voluntariness and to generate preliminary data on the extent and correlates of limitations on voluntariness. We developed a questionnaire to evaluate subjects’ reported motivations and constraints on voluntariness. 88 subjects in five different areas of clinical research—substance abuse, cancer, HIV, interventional cardiology, and depression—were assessed. Subjects reported a variety of motivations for participation. Offers (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  5.  11
    Who's Afraid of Psychiatric Genomics?Paul S. Appelbaum - 2017 - American Journal of Bioethics 17 (4):15-17.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  6.  4
    Raising Genomic Citizens: Adolescents and the Return of Secondary Genomic Findings.Maya Sabatello & Paul S. Appelbaum - 2016 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 44 (2):292-308.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  7.  8
    Why Is Therapeutic Misconception So Prevalent?Charles W. Lidz, Karen Albert, Paul Appelbaum, Laura B. Dunn, Eve Overton & Ekaterina Pivovarova - 2015 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24 (2):231-241.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  8.  5
    Unrealistic Optimism in Early-Phase Oncology Trials.Lynn A. Jansen, Paul S. Appelbaum, William Mp Klein, Neil D. Weinstein, William Cook, Jessica S. Fogel & Daniel P. Sulmasy - 2011 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 33 (1):1.
    Unrealistic optimism is a bias that leads people to believe, with respect to a specific event or hazard, that they are more likely to experience positive outcomes and/or less likely to experience negative outcomes than similar others. The phenomenon has been seen in a range of health-related contexts—including when prospective participants are presented with the risks and benefits of participating in a clinical trial. In order to test for the prevalence of unrealistic optimism among participants of early-phase oncology trials, we (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  9.  29
    Clarifying the Ethics of Clinical Research: A Path Toward Avoiding the Therapeutic Misconception.Paul S. Appelbaum - 2002 - American Journal of Bioethics 2 (2):22 – 23.
    (2002). Clarifying the Ethics of Clinical Research: A Path toward Avoiding the Therapeutic Misconception. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 22-23.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  10. [Drug Free Research in Schizophrenia].A. E. Shamoo & Paul S. Appelbaum - forthcoming - IRB: Ethics & Human Research.
  11.  18
    Models of Consent to Return of Incidental Findings in Genomic Research.Paul S. Appelbaum, Erik Parens, Cameron R. Waldman, Robert Klitzman, Abby Fyer, Josue Martinez, W. Nicholson Price & Wendy K. Chung - 2014 - Hastings Center Report 44 (4):22-32.
  12.  11
    Reliance Agreements and Single IRB Review of Multisite Research: Concerns of IRB Members and Staff.Charles W. Lidz, Ekaterina Pivovarova, Paul Appelbaum, Deborah F. Stiles, Alexandra Murray & Robert L. Klitzman - 2018 - Ajob Empirical Bioethics 9 (3):164-172.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  13.  8
    On What We Have Learned and Still Need to Learn About the Psychosocial Impacts of Genetic Testing.Erik Parens & Paul S. Appelbaum - 2019 - Hastings Center Report 49 (S1):S2-S9.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14.  8
    Drug-Free Research in Schizophrenia: An Overview of the Controversy.Paul S. Appelbaum - forthcoming - IRB: Ethics & Human Research.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  15.  66
    Ought We to Require Emotional Capacity as Part of Decisional Competence?Paul S. Appelbaum - 1998 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8 (4):377-387.
  16.  28
    Incidental Findings in the Era of Whole Genome Sequencing?Erik Parens, Paul Appelbaum & Wendy Chung - 2013 - Hastings Center Report 43 (4):16-19.
  17.  7
    Ignorance Isn’T Bliss: Retaining a Meaningful Comprehension Requirement for Consent to Research.Paul S. Appelbaum - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (5):22-24.
    Volume 19, Issue 5, May 2019, Page 22-24.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18.  30
    Appreciating Anorexia: Decisional Capacity and the Role of Values.Thomas Grisso & Paul S. Appelbaum - 2007 - Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 13 (4):293-297.
  19.  12
    Diagnosing Consciousness: Neuroimaging, Law, and the Vegetative State.Carl E. Fisher & Paul S. Appelbaum - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (2):374-385.
  20.  28
    The Challenge of Informed Consent and Return of Results in Translational Genomics: Empirical Analysis and Recommendations.Gail E. Henderson, Susan M. Wolf, Kristine J. Kuczynski, Steven Joffe, Richard R. Sharp, D. Williams Parsons, Bartha M. Knoppers, Joon-Ho Yu & Paul S. Appelbaum - 2014 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 42 (3):344-355.
    As exome and genome sequencing move into clinical application, questions surround how to elicit consent and handle potential return of individual genomic results. This study analyzes nine consent forms used in NIH-funded sequencing studies. Content analysis reveals considerable heterogeneity, including in defining results that may be returned, identifying potential benefits and risks of return, protecting privacy, addressing placement of results in the medical record, and data-sharing. In response to lack of consensus, we offer recommendations.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  21.  20
    Motivations of Patients With Diabetes to Participate in Research.Cynthia Geppert, Philip Candilis, Stephen Baker, Charles Lidz, Paul Appelbaum & Kenneth Fletcher - 2014 - Ajob Empirical Bioethics 5 (4):14-21.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  22.  18
    Re-Evaluating the Therapeutic Misconception: Response to Miller and Joffe.Paul S. Appelbaum & Charles W. Lidz - 2006 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 16 (4):367-373.
    : Responding to the paper by Miller and Joffe, we review the development of the concept of therapeutic misconception (TM). Our concerns about TM's impact on informed consent do not derive from the belief that research subjects have poorer outcomes than persons receiving ordinary clinical care. Rather, we believe that subjects with TM cannot give an adequate informed consent to research participation, which harms their dignitary interests and their abilities to make meaningful decisions. Ironically, Miller and Joffe's approach ends up (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  23.  34
    Diagnosing Consciousness: Neuroimaging, Law, and the Vegetative State.Carl E. Fisher & Paul S. Appelbaum - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (2):374-385.
    In this paper, we review recent neuroimaging investigations of disorders of consciousness and different disciplines' understanding of consciousness itself. We consider potential tests of consciousness, their legal significance, and how they map onto broader themes in U.S. statutory law pertaining to advance directives and surrogate decision-making. In the process, we outline a taxonomy of themes to illustrate and clarify the variance in state-law definitions of consciousness. Finally, we discuss broader scientific, ethical, and legal issues associated with the advent of neuroimaging (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  24.  23
    The Silent Majority: Who Speaks at IRB Meetings.Philip J. Candilis, Charles W. Lidz, Paul S. Appelbaum, Robert M. Arnold, William P. Gardner, Suzanne Myers, Albert J. Grudzinskas Jr & Lorna J. Simon - 2012 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 34 (4):15-20.
    Institutional review boards are almost universally considered to be overworked and understaffed. They also require substantial commitments of time and resources from their members. Although some surveys report average IRB memberships of 15 people or more, federal regulations require only five. We present data on IRB meetings at eight of the top 25 academic medical centers in the United States funded by the National Institutes of Health. These data indicate substantial contributions from primary reviewers and chairs during protocol discussions but (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  25.  15
    Clinical Ethics Versus Clinical Research.Paul S. Appelbaum & Charles W. Lidz - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (4):53 – 55.
  26.  26
    Psychopharmacology and the Power of Narrative.Paul S. Appelbaum - 2005 - American Journal of Bioethics 5 (3):48 – 49.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  27.  18
    Twenty-Five Years of Therapeutic Misconception.Paul S. Appelbaum & Charles W. Lidz - 2008 - Hastings Center Report 38 (2):5-6.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  28.  7
    Honey, I Sequenced the Kids: Preventive Genomics and the Complexities of Adolescence.Maya Sabatello & Paul S. Appelbaum - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (7):19-21.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  29.  16
    Contact with Pharmaceutical Representatives: Where Does Prudence Lead?Paul S. Appelbaum - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (1):11-13.
  30.  19
    Decisional Versus Performative Capacities: Not Exactly a New Idea.Paul S. Appelbaum - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2):31 – 32.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  31.  4
    Substituted Judgment: Best Interests in Disguise.Thomas G. Gutheil & Paul S. Appelbaum - 1983 - Hastings Center Report 13 (3):8-11.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  32.  7
    Commentary: Examining the Ethics of Human Subjects Research.Paul S. Appelbaum - 1996 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 6 (3):283-287.
  33.  15
    Personalized Disclosure by Information-on-Demand: Attending to Patients' Needs in the Informed Consent Process.Gil Siegal, Richard J. Bonnie & Paul S. Appelbaum - 2012 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (2):359-367.
    Obtaining informed consent has typically become a stylized ritual of presenting and signing a form, in which physicians are acting defensively and patients lack control over the content and flow of information. This leaves patients at risk both for being under-informed relative to their decisional needs and of receiving more information than they need or desire. By personalizing the process of seeking and receiving information and allowing patients to specify their desire for information in a prospective manner, we aim to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  34.  30
    Can a Theory of Voluntariness Be A Priori and Value-Free?Paul S. Appelbaum - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (8):17-18.
    The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 11, Issue 8, Page 17-18, August 2011.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  35.  4
    Personalized Disclosure by Information-on-Demand: Attending to Patients' Needs in the Informed Consent Process.Gil Siegal, Richard J. Bonnie & Paul S. Appelbaum - 2012 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (2):359-367.
  36.  18
    Parsing Neurobiological Dysfunctions in Obesity: Nosologic and Ethical Consequences.Paul S. Appelbaum, Michael J. Devlin & Carl E. Fisher - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (12):14-16.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  37.  8
    Improving the Quality of Informed Consent to Research.Victor Schwartz & Paul S. Appelbaum - 2008 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 30 (5):19-20.
    In order to facilitate the informed consent process, we suggest recording it. If investigators routinely recorded the consent process—including subsequent testing of participants’ comprehension and reeducation efforts—they could monitor the consent practices of their staff and determine what changes in procedure may be needed. In addition, should the adequacy of consent ever be challenged , investigators would have an easily accessible record of what had transpired. And finally, a pool of data would be created that could be accessed by researchers (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  38.  12
    Perceptions of Control and Unrealistic Optimism in Early-Phase Cancer Trials.Lynn A. Jansen, Daruka Mahadevan, Paul S. Appelbaum, William M. P. Klein, Neil D. Weinstein, Motomi Mori, Catherine Degnin & Daniel P. Sulmasy - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (2):121-127.
    Purpose Recent research has found unrealistic optimism among patient-subjects in early-phase oncology trials. Our aim was to investigate the cognitive and motivational factors that evoke this bias in this context. We expected perceptions of control to be a strong correlate of unrealistic optimism. Methods A study of patient-subjects enrolled in early-phase oncology trials was conducted at two sites in the USA. Respondents completed questionnaires designed to assess unrealistic optimism and several risk attribute variables that have been found to evoke the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39. Maintaining Informed Consent Validity During Lengthy Research Protocols.Kristen Prentice, Paul Appelbaum, Robert Conley & William Carpenter - 2007 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 30 (29):1-6.
    Participants in clinical studies are frequently unable to remember study information for the duration of their participation in the research. Along with a nine-member work group and a seven-member advisory group, we determined that six elements of consent are necessary to uphold the validity of consent over time: awareness of ongoing participation; understanding the right to withdraw; understanding that withdrawal will not influence other treatment options; knowledge of the general purpose of the research; knowledge of potential risks of participation; and (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  40.  6
    Case Studies: Can a Subject Consent to a 'Ulysses Contract'?Morton E. Winston, Sally M. Winston, Paul S. Appelbaum & Nancy K. Rhoden - 1982 - Hastings Center Report 12 (4):26.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  41.  28
    Benefits and Risks in Secondary Use of Digitized Clinical Data: Views of Community Members Living in a Predominantly Ethnic Minority Urban Neighborhood.Robert J. Lucero, Joan Kearney, Yamnia Cortes, Adriana Arcia, Paul Appelbaum, Roberto Lewis Fernández & Jose Luchsinger - 2015 - Ajob Empirical Bioethics 6 (2):12-22.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42.  16
    There Are All Kinds of Rights.Paul S. Appelbaum - 2016 - Hastings Center Report 46 (2):inside back cover-inside back co.
    Some years ago I received a phone call telling me that my mother, then in her eighties, had been found wandering the street outside her home. It was the first indication my wife and I had of Alzheimer's disease. We arrived to discover that my mother was incoherent, with the house in disorder, bills unpaid, and perishable food in the night table rather than the refrigerator. Having spent much of my career trying to improve the assessment of decisional capacity, in (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43.  6
    Intuition, Self-Reflection, and Individual Choice: Considerations for Proposed Changes to Criteria for Decisional Capacity.Paul S. Appelbaum - 2017 - Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 24 (4):325-328.
    Liberal societies are built on a foundation of personal rights, including the right to make decisions about the medical treatment that one will receive or decline to receive. So essential to the liberal project is the power of individual choice that it will be abrogated only in the most extreme situations, in which persons seem to be unable to make rational decisions and thereby to protect their interests. A small number of decision-related abilities have been identified as relevant to the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  44.  33
    Avoiding Premature Judgments About the Duty to Protect.Paul S. Appelbaum - 2011 - Ethics and Behavior 21 (1):82-83.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  45.  19
    The Subject Advocate: Protecting the Interests of Participants with Fluctuating Decisionmaking Capacity.Scott Stroup & Paul Appelbaum - forthcoming - IRB: Ethics & Human Research.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  46.  4
    Case Study: Death in Denial.Renée M. Guiles, Paul S. Appelbaum & Renee M. Guiles - 1997 - Hastings Center Report 27 (6):23.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47.  7
    An Introduction to Thinking About Trustworthy Research Into the Genetics of Intelligence.Erik Parens & Paul S. Appelbaum - 2015 - Hastings Center Report 45 (S1):S2-S8.
  48.  6
    The Authors Reply.Paul S. Appelbaum, Wendy Chung, Abby J. Fyer, Robert L. Klitzman, Josue Martinez, Erik Parens, W. Nicholson Price & Cameron Waldman - 2015 - Hastings Center Report 45 (1):4-4.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49.  6
    17 Coercion and Undue Influence in Decisions to Participate in Psychiatric Research.Paul S. Appelbaum, Charles W. Lidz & Robert Klitzman - 2011 - In Thomas W. Kallert, Juan E. Mezzich & John Monahan (eds.), Coercive Treatment in Psychiatry: Clinical, Legal and Ethical Aspects. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 293.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50.  7
    The Substituted Judgment Approach: Its Difficulties and Paradoxes in Mental Health Settings.Thomas G. Gutheil & Paul S. Appelbaum - 1985 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 13 (2):61-64.
1 — 50 / 60