The concise argument

Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (2):65-65 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I am writing this during the Christmas holidays, and one of the papers in this issue brings to mind the extraordinary serenity and peace of mind with which Joseph and Mary dealt with the strange happenings surrounding the birth of their first son, baby Jesus, who according to the Bible was a N=1 experiment. The paper by Nathan et al studies parental decision-making in relation to neonatal research. They used the MacArthur competence assessment tool for clinical research to assess parental competence in parents of neonates undergoing cardiac surgery. The parents were asked for permission to enrol the neonates in one of three non-therapeutic studies before the surgery. The study shows that parents in this situation in general had …

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,322

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Presumed consent in emergency neonatal research.D. J. Manning - 2000 - Journal of Medical Ethics 26 (4):249-253.
The concise argument: Highlights from this issue.Søren Holm - 2011 - Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (4):193-193.
Fundamental interests and parental rights.Michael W. Austin - 2007 - International Philosophical Quarterly 47 (2):221-235.
The concise argument.Søren Holm - 2010 - Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (12):719-719.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-02-23

Downloads
7 (#1,351,854)

6 months
2 (#1,263,261)

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

No references found.

Add more references