13 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Paul M. McNeill [12]Paul Murray McNeill [1]
  1. The Ethics and Politics of Human Experimentation.Paul Murray McNeill - 1993 - Cambridge University Press.
    This book focuses on experimentation that is carried out on human beings, including medical research, drug research and research undertaken in the social sciences. It discusses the ethics of such experimentation and asks the question: who defends the interests of these human subjects and ensures that they are not harmed? The author finds that ethical research depends on the adequacy of review by committee. Indeed most countries now rely on research ethics committees for the protection of the interests of the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  2.  19
    A Critical Analysis of Australian Clinical Ethics Committees and the Functions They Serve.Paul M. McNeill - 2001 - Bioethics 15 (5-6):443-460.
  3.  26
    Public Health Ethics: Asylum Seekers and the Case for Political Action.Paul M. Mcneill - 2003 - Bioethics 17 (5-6):487-503.
  4.  13
    From, the Editors 493.Stanley Joel Reiser, Kenneth Craig Micetich, William L. Freeman, Paul M. Mcneill, Catherine A. Berglund, Ianw Webster, Susan Sherwin, Evan Derenzo, Martyn Evans & Sujit Choudhry - 1994 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 3 (4):522-532.
    Throughout the world, research ethics committees are relied on to prevent unethical research and protect research subjects. Given that reliance, the composition of committees and the manner in which decisions are arrived at by committee members is of critical importance. There have been Instances in which an inadequate review process has resulted in serious harm to research subjects. Deficient committee review was identified as one of the factors In a study in New Zealand which resulted in the suffering and death (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  5.  8
    Research Ethics Review and the Bureaucracy.Paul M. McNeill - 2002 - Monash Bioethics Review 21 (3):S72-S73.
    This paper suggests that the increasing bureaucracy of ethics review by committee is more about fulfilling institutional requirements than it is about ethics. It is suggested that ethics committees should not be instruments of bureaucratic regulation and control. They should be freed to play a critical role within the institution, to support and develop ethical research and researchers, and given time to discuss and explore difficult ethical issues where they arise. To burden research ethics committees with trivial bureaucratic tasks is (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  6.  13
    How Much Influence Do Various Members Have Within Research Ethics Committees?Paul M. McNeill, Catherine A. Berglund & Ian W. Webster - 1994 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 3 (4):522.
    Throughout the world, research ethics committees are relied on to prevent unethical research and protect research subjects. Given that reliance, the composition of committees and the manner in which decisions are arrived at by committee members is of critical importance. There have been Instances in which an inadequate review process has resulted in serious harm to research subjects. Deficient committee review was identified as one of the factors In a study in New Zealand which resulted in the suffering and death (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  7.  17
    Research Ethics Review in Australia, Europe, and North America.Paul M. McNeill - 1989 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 11 (3):4.
  8.  10
    Guest Editorial.Paul M. Mcneill - 2005 - Bioethics 19 (5-6):iii-iv.
  9.  28
    Commentary: Responding More Broadly and Ethically.Anthony B. Zwi, Paul M. McNeill & Natalie J. Grove - 2006 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 15 (4):428-431.
    The AMA's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs' position statement on “Disaster Preparedness and Response” is a welcome discussion of an important issue: the extent to which physicians have a responsibility to treat people affected by disasters in which the nature, source, and cause of the harm is unclear and where the risk is largely unknown.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10. Biomedical Ethics Reviews: 1992.James M. Huber, Robert F. Almeder & Paul M. McNeill - 1995 - Bioethics 9 (1):87-89.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  76
    Gifts, Drug Samples, and Other Items Given to Medical Specialists by Pharmaceutical Companies.Paul M. McNeill, Ian H. Kerridge, Catherine Arciuli, David A. Henry, Graham J. Macdonald, Richard O. Day & Suzanne R. Hill - 2006 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3 (3):139-148.
    Aim To ascertain the quantity and nature of gifts and items provided by the pharmaceutical industry in Australia to medical specialists and to consider whether these are appropriate in terms of justifiable ethical standards, empirical research and views expressed in the literature.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12.  7
    Should Bioethics Play Football?Paul M. McNeill - 2000 - Monash Bioethics Review 19 (4):46-49.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. The Accountability of Bioethics Committees and Consultants.Sigrid Fry Revere & Paul M. McNeill - 1996 - Bioethics 10 (1):71-72.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark