Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Ban the Sunset? Nonpropositional Content and Regulation of Pharmaceutical Advertising”

&
American Journal of Bioethics 13 (5):W1-W5 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1080/15265161.2013.785191

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

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

Ban the Sunset? Nonpropositional Content and Regulation of Pharmaceutical Advertising.Paul Biegler & Patrick Vargas - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (5):3-13.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Pitfalls of Deducing Ethics from Economics: Why the Association of American Medical Colleges is Wrong About Pharmaceutical Detailing”.Thomas S. Huddle - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (1):1-3.
Don't Ban the Sunset in Pharmaceutical Advertising If It Doesn't Darken the Sky.Thomas S. Huddle - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (5):27-30.
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.
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.
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 “Visual Bioethics”.Paul Lauritzen - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (12):2-3.
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 “A Decisional Analysis of Consent”.Jonathan Baron - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):W51-W53.
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.
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.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-10-26

Downloads
32 (#487,332)

6 months
6 (#504,917)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Inching Toward Health Decision Exceptionalism.Meredith Stark & Joseph J. Fins - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (5):18-19.
Pharmaceutical Companies: The Perfect Scapegoat for Everything.Pepe Lee Chang - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (5):30-32.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Thinking, Fast and Slow.Daniel Kahneman - 2011 - New York: New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Well-being: its meaning, measurement, and moral importance.James Griffin - 1986 - Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Clarendon Press.

View all 27 references / Add more references