Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Assessing the Remedy: The Case for Contracts in Clinical Trials”

American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):W1-W3 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

No abstract

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1080/15265161.2011.572489

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

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

Assessing the Remedy: The Case for Contracts in Clinical Trials.Sarah J. L. Edwards - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):3-12.
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.
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 “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.
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 “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.
Reviewing the Unsubstantiated Claims for the Methodological Superiority of 'Placebo' over 'Active' Controlled Trials: Reply to Open Peer Commentaries.Jeremy Howick - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (9):5-7.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on "Ethics Consultation in U.S. Hospitals: A National Survey".Ellen Fox, Sarah Myers & Robert A. Pearlman - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (2):1-3.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Relative Versus Absolute Standards for Everyday Risk in Adolescent HIV Prevention Trials: Expanding the Debate”.Jeremy Snyder, Cari L. Miller & Glenda Gray - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):W1 - W3.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Analogical Reasoning in Handling Emerging Technologies: The Case of Umbilical Cord Blood Biobanking”: Analogy is Like Air—Invisible and Indispensable.Bjørn Hofmann, Søren Holm & Jan Helge Solbakk - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (6):W13-W14.
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 “A Decisional Analysis of Consent”.Jonathan Baron - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):W51-W53.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-04-09

Downloads
25 (#614,662)

6 months
6 (#522,885)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Sarah Edwards
State University of New York, Buffalo

Citations of this work

The Research Subject as Identified Problem.Paul Root Wolpe - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):1-2.

Add more citations

References found in this work

View all 9 references / Add more references