Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “A Decisional Analysis of Consent”

American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):W51-W53 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Many of the comments on my article reiterate standard criticisms of utilitarianism, which have been answered, and the answers continue to be ignored. For example: interpersonal comparison has been...

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1080/15265160600686430

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

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

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 “Why Consent May Not Be Needed For Organ Procurement”.James Delaney & David B. Hershenov - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (8):1-2.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Informed Consent Revisited: Japan and the US”.Akira Akabayashi & Brian Taylor Slingsby - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (1):W27-W28.
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 “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 “The Concept of Voluntary Consent”.Robert M. Nelson & Tom L. Beauchamp - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (8):W1-W3.
Response to open Peer commentaries on "biotechnology and the new right: Neoconservatism's red menace".Jonathan D. Moreno & Sam Berger - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (10):W1 – W3.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “A Broader View of Justice”.Nancy S. Jecker - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (10):1-2.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Coming Era of Nanomedicine”.Fritz Allhoff - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (10):1-2.
Genetic Enhancement Revisited: Response to Open Peer Commentaries.Ruiping Fan - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (4):6-8.
Response to open Peer commentaries on “why treat the wounded?”.Michael L. Gross - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (2):W1 – W3.
Response to open Peer commentaries on “must research participants understand randomization?”.David Wendler - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2):W1 – W2.
Deidentification and Its Discontents: Response to the Open Peer Commentaries.Mark A. Rothstein - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (9):W1-W2.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Case for Evidence-Based Rulemaking”.Benjamin Sachs - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (6):1-3.
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.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-11

Downloads
25 (#595,425)

6 months
7 (#339,156)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Moral thinking: its levels, method, and point.R. M. Hare (ed.) - 1981 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moral heuristics.Cass R. Sunstein - 2005 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (4):531-542.
Moral Thinking. Its Levels, Method and Point.R. M. Hare - 1985 - Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 90 (2):271-273.
Morality and Rational Choice.J. Baron - 1993 - Springer Verlag.

View all 17 references / Add more references