Response to Open Peer Commentaries “Taxonomizing Views of Clinical Ethics Expertise”

&
American Journal of Bioethics 20 (1):W5-W8 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1080/15265161.2019.1679910

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,881

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

Taxonomizing Views of Clinical Ethics Expertise.Erica K. Salter & Abram Brummett - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (11):50-61.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Neglected Ends: Clinical Ethics Consultation and the Prospects for Closure”.Autumn Fiester - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (1):9-10.
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.
Against Inflationary Views of Ethics Expertise.Lisa M. Rasmussen - 2018 - HEC Forum 30 (2):171-185.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Ethics and Collateral Findings in Pragmatic Clinical Trials”.Stephanie Morain, Debra Mathews, Juli Murphy Bollinger & Jeremy Sugarman - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (1):W9-W11.
Moral Normative Force and Clinical Ethics Expertise.Parker Crutchfield - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (11):89-91.
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.
Defining the Scope and Improving the Quality of Clinical Research Ethics Consultation: Response to Open Peer Commentaries About the National Collaborative.Kathryn M. Porter, Marion Danis, Holly A. Taylor, Mildred K. Cho & Benjamin S. Wilfond - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (2):13-15.
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.
Expertise, Ethics Expertise, and Clinical Ethics Consultation: Achieving Terminological Clarity.Ana S. Iltis & Mark Sheehan - 2016 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 41 (4):416-433.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Neuroethics: A New Way of Doing Ethics”.Neil Levy - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 2 (2):W1-W4.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “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 (6-7):7-8.
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.
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.
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.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-01-03

Downloads
20 (#767,589)

6 months
8 (#361,431)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Abram Brummett
Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Context, Context, Context.Mark P. Aulisio - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (11):73-75.

View all 16 references / Add more references