Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “A Duty to Deceive: Placebos in Clinical Practice”

American Journal of Bioethics 9 (12):1-2 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1080/15265160903316412

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

A Duty to Deceive: Placebos in Clinical Practice.Bennett Foddy - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (12):4-12.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on "A Kantian Moral Duty for the Soon to Be Demented to Commit Suicide".Dennis R. Cooley - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (6):1-3.
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 “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.
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.
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.
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.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-14

Downloads
27 (#572,408)

6 months
3 (#1,023,809)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Ravines and Sugar Pills: Defending Deceptive Placebo Use.Jonathan Pugh - 2015 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 40 (1):83-101.
The Paradoxical Placebo.Mary V. Rorty & Lorry R. Frankel - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (12):17-20.

Add more citations

References found in this work

A Duty to Deceive: Placebos in Clinical Practice.Bennett Foddy - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (12):4-12.
When Doctors Deceive.Richard Kanaan - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (12):29-30.
When Subtle Deception Turns into an Outright Lie.Abraham P. Schwab - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (12):30-32.
Physician Deception and Patient Autonomy.D. Micah Hester & Robert B. Talisse - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (12):22-23.

View all 14 references / Add more references