39 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Paul J. Ford [39]Paul Jason Ford [1]
  1.  12
    Pragmatism and the Importance of Interdisciplinary Teams in Investigating Personality Changes Following DBS.Cynthia S. Kubu, Paul J. Ford, Joshua A. Wilt, Amanda R. Merner, Michelle Montpetite, Jaclyn Zeigler & Eric Racine - forthcoming - Neuroethics:1-10.
    Gilbert and colleagues point out the discrepancy between the limited empirical data illustrating changes in personality following implantation of deep brain stimulating electrodes and the vast number of conceptual neuroethics papers implying that these changes are widespread, deleterious, and clinically significant. Their findings are reminiscent of C. P. Snow’s essay on the divide between the two cultures of the humanities and the sciences. This division in the literature raises significant ethical concerns surrounding unjustified fear of personality changes in the context (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  2.  52
    Beyond Consent in Research.Emily Bell, Eric Racine, Paula Chiasson, Maya Dufourcq-Brana, Laura B. Dunn, Joseph J. Fins, Paul J. Ford, Walter Glannon, Nir Lipsman, Mary Ellen Macdonald, Debra J. H. Mathews & Mary Pat Mcandrews - 2014 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 23 (3):361-368.
    Vulnerability is an important criterion to assess the ethical justification of the inclusion of participants in research trials. Currently, vulnerability is often understood as an attribute inherent to a participant by nature of a diagnosed condition. Accordingly, a common ethical concern relates to the participant’s decisionmaking capacity and ability to provide free and informed consent. We propose an expanded view of vulnerability that moves beyond a focus on consent and the intrinsic attributes of participants. We offer specific suggestions for how (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  3.  14
    Complex Ethics Consultations: Cases That Haunt Us.Paul J. Ford & Denise M. Dudzinski (eds.) - 2008 - Cambridge University Press.
    Clinical ethicists encounter the most emotionally eviscerating medical cases possible. They struggle to facilitate resolutions founded on good reasoning embedded in compassionate care. This book fills the considerable gap between current texts and the continuing educational needs of those actually facing complex ethics consultations in hospital settings. 28 richly detailed cases explore the ethical reasoning, professional issues, and the emotional aspects of these impossibly difficult consultations. The cases are grouped together by theme to aid teaching, discussion and professional growth. The (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  4.  55
    Neuroethics and the Ethical Parity Principle.Joseph P. DeMarco & Paul J. Ford - 2014 - Neuroethics 7 (3):317-325.
    Neil Levy offers the most prominent moral principles that are specifically and exclusively designed to apply to neuroethics. His two closely related principles, labeled as versions of the ethical parity principle , are intended to resolve moral concerns about neurological modification and enhancement [1]. Though EPP is appealing and potentially illuminating, we reject the first version and substantially modify the second. Since his first principle, called EPP , is dependent on the contention that the mind literally extends into external props (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  5.  30
    Balancing in Ethical Deliberation: Superior to Specification and Casuistry.Joseph P. Demarco & Paul J. Ford - 2006 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (5):483 – 497.
    Approaches to clinical ethics dilemmas that rely on basic principles or rules are difficult to apply because of vagueness and conflict among basic values. In response, casuistry rejects the use of basic values, and specification produces a large set of specified rules that are presumably easily applicable. Balancing is a method employed to weigh the relative importance of different and conflicting values in application. We argue against casuistry and specification, claiming that balancing is superior partly because it most clearly exhibits (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  6.  2
    Pragmatism and the Importance of Interdisciplinary Teams in Investigating Personality Changes Following DBS.Cynthia S. Kubu, Paul J. Ford, Joshua A. Wilt, Amanda R. Merner, Michelle Montpetite, Jaclyn Zeigler & Eric Racine - forthcoming - Neuroethics:1-10.
    Gilbert and colleagues point out the discrepancy between the limited empirical data illustrating changes in personality following implantation of deep brain stimulating electrodes and the vast number of conceptual neuroethics papers implying that these changes are widespread, deleterious, and clinically significant. Their findings are reminiscent of C. P. Snow’s essay on the divide between the two cultures of the humanities and the sciences. This division in the literature raises significant ethical concerns surrounding unjustified fear of personality changes in the context (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  7.  11
    Is There an Ethical Obligation to Disclose Controversial Risk? A Question From the ACCORD Trial.Joseph P. DeMarco, Paul J. Ford, Dana J. Patton & Douglas O. Stewart - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics 14 (4):4-10.
    Researchers designing a clinical trial may be aware of disputed evidence of serious risks from previous studies. These researchers must decide whether and how to describe these risks in their model informed consent document. They have an ethical obligation to provide fully informed consent, but does this obligation include notice of controversial evidence? With ACCORD as an example, we describe a framework and criteria that make clear the conditions requiring inclusion of important controversial risks. The ACCORD model consent document did (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  8.  1
    Pragmatism and the Importance of Interdisciplinary Teams in Investigating Personality Changes Following DBS.Cynthia S. Kubu, Paul J. Ford, Joshua A. Wilt, Amanda R. Merner, Michelle Montpetite, Jaclyn Zeigler & Eric Racine - forthcoming - Neuroethics:1-10.
    Gilbert and colleagues point out the discrepancy between the limited empirical data illustrating changes in personality following implantation of deep brain stimulating electrodes and the vast number of conceptual neuroethics papers implying that these changes are widespread, deleterious, and clinically significant. Their findings are reminiscent of C. P. Snow’s essay on the divide between the two cultures of the humanities and the sciences. This division in the literature raises significant ethical concerns surrounding unjustified fear of personality changes in the context (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  9.  5
    A Taxonomy and an Ethicist’s Toolbox: Mapping a Plurality of Normative Approaches.Paul J. Ford, Douglas O. Stewart, Joseph P. DeMarco & Sharon L. Feldman - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (11):78-80.
    Volume 19, Issue 11, November 2019, Page 78-80.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  10.  20
    Vulnerable Brains: Research Ethics and Neurosurgical Patients.Paul J. Ford - 2009 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 37 (1):73-82.
    Seven specific challenges in patient vulnerability related to neurosurgical advancement highlight needed augmentations for standards in innovation and research that do not unduly inhibit access to potential therapies while assuring just treatment of patients.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  11.  8
    Vulnerable Brains: Research Ethics and Neurosurgical Patients.Paul J. Ford - 2009 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 37 (1):73-82.
    The vulnerability of patients receiving significantly innovative neurosurgical procedures, either as research or as non-standard therapy, presents particularly potent challenges for those attempting to substantially advance clinical Neurosurgical practice in the most ethically and efficacious manner. This beginning formulation has built into it several important notions about research participation, balancing values, and clinical advancement in the context of neurological illness. For the time being, allow vulnerability to act as a placeholder for circumstances or states of being wherein the established checks (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  12.  23
    Neurosurgical Implants: Clinical Protocol Considerations.Paul J. Ford - 2007 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16 (3):308-311.
    As neural implants transition from engineering design and testing into human subjects research, careful consideration must be paid to the ethical elements in developing research protocols. Although these ethical aspects may be framed by the design choices of the engineering, a number of challenging choices arise. In spite of many ethical considerations for neural implant technologies being shared with generic research ethics questions, there are subsets needing special attention. Even in considerations requiring increased attention, substantial overlap can be found with (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  13.  14
    Treating Medically Unexplained Symptoms Empirically: Ethical Implications for Concurrent Diagnosis.Lauren R. Sankary & Paul J. Ford - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (5):16-17.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  14.  27
    Ethics in the Clinical Application of Neural Implants.Cynthia S. Kubu & Paul J. Ford - 2007 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16 (3):317-321.
    Once a neural implant has shown some efficacy during initial research trials, it begins to enter the world of clinical application. This culminates when the implant becomes approved for a particular indication. However, the ethical challenges continue as the technology is adopted as a standard of practice. Patient eligibility criteria, as documented by inclusion and exclusion criteria with any new treatment, are not always clearly quantified and defined. These vagaries can result in considerable debate regarding who should or should not (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  15. A Further Analysis of the Ethics of Representation in Virtual Reality: Multi-User Environments. [REVIEW]Paul J. Ford - 2001 - Ethics and Information Technology 3 (2):113-121.
    This is a follow-up article toPhilip Brey's ``The ethics of representation andaction in Virtual Reality'' (published in thisjournal in January 1999). Brey's call for moreanalysis of ethical issues of virtual reality(VR) is continued by further analyzing issuesin a specialized domain of VR – namelymulti-user environments. Several elements ofBrey's article are critiqued in order to givemore context and a framework for discussion.Issues surrounding representations ofcharacters in multi-user virtual realities aresurveyed in order to focus attention on theimportance of additional discussion andanalysis of (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  16.  13
    Good Samaritan Ethics for Doctors Watching Edutainment.Lauren R. Sankary & Paul J. Ford - 2016 - American Journal of Bioethics 16 (11):53-54.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  17.  8
    Ameliorating and Exacerbating: Surgical "Prosthesis" in Addiction.Paul J. Ford & Cynthia S. Kubu - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (1):32 – 34.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  18.  18
    Caution in Leaping From Functional Imaging to Functional Neurosurgery.Paul J. Ford & Cynthia S. Kubu - 2005 - American Journal of Bioethics 5 (2):23 – 25.
  19.  9
    Different Questions, Different Goals.Paul J. Ford & Adrienne R. Boissy - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (2):46 – 47.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  20.  5
    An Ethicist's Scope of Practice: Equipping Stakeholders for Closure.Bryan Kibbe, Patrick Schmitt & Paul J. Ford - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (1):37-38.
    An ethics consultant’s scope of practice is best understood as equipping stakeholders to achieve closure over time following after the ethics consultation. This is in contrast to Autumn Fiester’s position in the article, “Neglected Ends: Clinical Ethics Consultation and the Prospects for Closure,” where she claims that moral closure is a necessary condition for the proper completion of an ethics consultation case.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  21.  8
    Professional Clinical Ethicist: Knowing Why and Limits.Paul J. Ford - 2007 - Journal of Clinical Ethics 18 (3):243.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  22.  38
    Advancing From Treatment to Enhancement in Deep Brain Stimulation: A Question of Research Ethics.Paul J. Ford - 2006 - The Pluralist 1 (2):35 - 44.
  23.  22
    Physician Obligation, Cultural Factors, and Neonatal Male Circumcision.Paul J. Ford - 2003 - American Journal of Bioethics 3 (2):58-59.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  24.  13
    Paralysis Lost.Paul J. Ford - 2001 - Social Theory and Practice 27 (4):661-680.
  25.  7
    My Organs, My Choice.Paul J. Ford & Toni Ann Nicoletti - 2005 - American Journal of Bioethics 5 (4):30 – 31.
  26.  5
    Ethics of Preventive Timing and Robust Outcomes in Surgical Interventions for Anorexia Nervosa.Jessie B. DeWeese, Andre Machado & Paul J. Ford - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 6 (4):75-76.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  27.  10
    Response to the Open Peer Commentaries on “Is There an Ethical Obligation to Disclose Controversial Risk? A Question From the ACCORD Trial”.Joseph P. DeMarco, Paul J. Ford, Dana J. Patton & Douglas O. Stewart - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics 14 (4):W1 - W2.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  28.  36
    Anti-Infective Therapy at End of Life: Ethical Decision-Making in Hospice-Eligible Patients.Paul J. Ford, Thomas G. Fraser, Mellar P. Davis & And Eric Kodish - 2005 - Bioethics 19 (4):379–392.
  29.  51
    Anti‐Infective Therapy at End of Life: Ethical Decision‐Making in Hospice‐Eligible Patients.Paul J. Ford, Thomas G. Fraser, Mellar P. Davis & Eric Kodish - 2005 - Bioethics 19 (4):379-392.
  30.  2
    Commentary.Paul J. Ford - 2009 - Hastings Center Report 39 (4):11-12.
  31.  5
    Hacking the Mind.Paul J. Ford - 2009 - In Sandra Shapshay (ed.), Bioethics at the Movies. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 156.
  32.  5
    Paralysis Lost: Impacts of Virtual Worlds on Those with Paralysis.Paul J. Ford - 2001 - Social Theory and Practice 27 (4):661-680.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33.  35
    Special Section on Clincial Neuroethics Consultation: Introduction. [REVIEW]Paul J. Ford - 2008 - HEC Forum 20 (4):311-314.
  34.  5
    Values at the Crossroads of Neurology, Psychiatry, and Psychology.Paul J. Ford - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 4 (3):1-2.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  35.  3
    Correction to: Pragmatismand the Importance of Interdisciplinary Teams in Investigating Personality Changes Following DBS.Cynthia S. Kubu, Paul J. Ford, Joshua A. Wilt, Amanda R. Merner, Michelle Montpetite, Jaclyn Zeigler & Eric Racine - forthcoming - Neuroethics:1-1.
    The article Pragmatismand the Importance of Interdisciplinary Teams in Investigating Personality Changes Following DBS.
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36.  9
    Reframing Nonepileptic Seizure Patients' Care: Shifting the Blame.Laura L. Ross & Paul J. Ford - 2012 - American Journal of Bioethics 12 (5):11-12.
    The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 5, Page 11-12, May 2012.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37.  2
    Publication of Study Exit Procedures in Clinical Trials of Deep Brain Stimulation: A Focused Literature Review.Lauren R. Sankary, Akila M. Nallapan, Olivia Hogue, Andre G. Machado & Paul J. Ford - 2020 - Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 14.
  38.  2
    Using Functionality Rather Than Elective Nature to Characterize Neurosurgeries During Pandemic Triage.Nathan A. Shlobin, Joshua M. Rosenow & Paul J. Ford - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (7):196-198.
    Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 196-198.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39.  29
    Regulatory Misconception Muddies the Ethical Waters: Challenges to a Qualitative Study.Kimberly M. Yee & Paul J. Ford - 2012 - Journal of Clinical Ethics 23 (3):217-220.
    In “Potential Subjects’ Responses to an Ethics Questionnaire in a Phase I Study of Deep-Brain Stimulation in Early Parkinson’s Disease,” Finder, Bliton, Gill, Davis, Konrad, and Charles undertake informed consent research on what they describe as a Phase I trial of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. We argue that the authors should have more carefully characterized the nature of the DBS study at the start of their clinical study.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark