Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “What is The Best Standard for the Standard of Care in Clinical Research?”

&
American Journal of Bioethics 9 (6-7):7-8 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

No abstract

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1080/15265160902918804

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,197

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

What is the best standard for the standard of care in clinical research?Rieke van der Graaf & Johannes J. M. van Delden - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (3):35 – 43.
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 Open Peer Commentaries on “Disclosing Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants”: Defining Clinical Utility And Revisiting the Role of Relationships.Vardit Ravitsky & Benjamin S. Wilfond - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (6):W10-W12.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “A Duty to Deceive: Placebos in Clinical Practice”.Bennett Foddy - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (12):1-2.
On using people merely as a means in clinical research.Rieke van der Graaf & Johannes J. M. van Delden - 2010 - Bioethics 26 (2):76-83.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Assessing the Remedy: The Case for Contracts in Clinical Trials”.Sarah J. L. Edwards - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):W1-W3.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Withdrawal of Nonfutile Life Support After Attempted Suicide”.Samuel M. Brown, C. Gregory Elliott & Robert Paine - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics: 13 (3):W3 - W5.
Response to open Peer commentaries on “must research participants understand randomization?”.David Wendler - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2):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.
The ambiguity and the exigency: Clarifying 'standard of care' arguments in international research.Alex John London - 2000 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (4):379 – 397.
Response to open Peer commentaries on “justifying a presumption of restraint in animal biotechnology research”.Autumn Fiester - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (6):W1 – W2.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “A Duty to Participate in Research: Does Social Context Matter?”.Inmaculada de Melo-Martín - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (10):3-4.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on "Health Literacy, Health Inequality and a Just Health Care System".Angelo E. Volandes & Michael K. Paasche-Orlow - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (11):1-2.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Research 2.0: Social Networking and Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomics”.Sandra Soo-Jin Lee & LaVera Crawley - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (6-7):1-3.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-14

Downloads
32 (#502,127)

6 months
11 (#243,798)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Back to basics in clinical research ethics.Bridget Haire - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (3):48 – 49.
Standard-of-care propositions should permit informative comparisons.Howard Mann - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (3):46 – 47.

Add more citations

References found in this work

View all 7 references / Add more references