Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Addressing Dual Agency: Getting Specific About the Expectations of Professionalism”

American Journal of Bioethics 14 (10):4-5 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

No abstract

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1080/15265161.2014.947826

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

Addressing Dual Agency: Getting Specific About the Expectations of Professionalism.Jon C. Tilburt - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics 14 (9):29-36.
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 “How to Do Research Fairly in an Unjust World”.Angela J. Ballantyne - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (6):4-6.
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.
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 “The Coming Era of Nanomedicine”.Fritz Allhoff - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (10):1-2.
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.
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 “Trans Fat Bans and Human Freedom”.David Resnik - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (3):4-5.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “A Broader View of Justice”.Nancy S. Jecker - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (10):1-2.
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 “A Decisional Analysis of Consent”.Jonathan Baron - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):W51-W53.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-09-18

Downloads
20 (#747,345)

6 months
7 (#411,886)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Political Activism is not Mandated by Medical Professionalism.Thomas S. Huddle - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics 14 (9):51-53.
Legal Barriers to Physicians' Stewardship Role.Jessica Mantel - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics 14 (9):40-42.
In Defense of Bunkering.David Wasserman & Alan Wertheimer - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics 14 (9):42-43.

View all 8 references / Add more references