Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “An Open Letter to Institutional Review Boards Considering Northfield Laboratories' PolyHeme® Trial”: The Emergency Exception and Unproven/unsatisfactory Treatment

, &
American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):W49-W50 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1080/15265160600686422

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,953

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “An Open Letter to Institutional Review Boards Considering Northfield Laboratories' PolyHeme® Trial ”: The Emergency Exception and Unproven/Unsatisfactory Treatment.Ken Kipnis, Nancy M. P. King & Robert M. Nelson - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):W49-W50.
An open letter to institutional review boards considering northfield laboratories' polyheme® trial.Ken Kipnis, Nancy M. P. King & Robert M. Nelson - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):18 – 21.
An Open Letter to Institutional Review Boards Considering Northfield Laboratories’ PolyHeme® Trial.Robert M. Nelson, Nancy M. P. King & Ken Kipnis - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (10):5-8.
Accidental communities: Race, emergency medicine, and the problem of polyheme®.Karla F. C. Holloway - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):7 – 17.
Accidental Communities: Race, Emergency Medicine, and the Problem of PolyHeme ®.Karla F. C. Holloway - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):7-17.
Getting the ethics right regarding research in the emergency setting: Lessons from the polyheme study.Neal Dickert & Jeremy Sugarman - 2007 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17 (2):153-169.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on "Defining the Scope of Implied Consent in the Emergency Department".Mark Graber & Raul Easton - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (12):3-4.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Ethics of Clinical Science in a Public Health Emergency: Drug Discovery at the Bedside”.Sarah Jl Edwards - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (9):W1-W3.
The Right to Know Your Genetic Parents: From Open-Identity Gamete Donation to Routine Paternity Testing.An Ravelingien & Guido Pennings - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (5):33-41.
An Unbiased Response to the Open Peer Commentaries on “Does Consent Bias Research?”.Mark A. Rothstein & Abigail B. Shoben - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (4):W1 - W4.
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.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “How to Do Research Fairly in an Unjust World”.Angela J. Ballantyne - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (6):4-6.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “A Broader View of Justice”.Nancy S. Jecker - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (10):1-2.
Engaging With a Peer-Proposed, Additional Exploitation Condition: Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Transnational Gestational Surrogacy: Does It Have to Be Exploitative?”.Jeffrey Kirby - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics 14 (5):W1 - W3.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-03-18

Downloads
19 (#824,104)

6 months
9 (#355,912)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Good and not so good medical ethics.Rosamond Rhodes - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (1):71-74.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Rules is rules.Robert D. Orr - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):40 – 41.

View all 9 references / Add more references