Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Marginal Public Health Gain of Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Modelling Study, Based on WHO and National Databases in the Nordic Countries.Johann A. Sigurdsson, Linn Getz, Göran Sjönell, Paula Vainiomäki & John Brodersen - 2013 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 19 (2):400-407.
  • Medicalization as a Moral Problem for Preventive Medicine.Marcel Verweij - 1999 - Bioethics 13 (2):89–113.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  • Under What Conditions Do Patients Want to Be Informed About Their Risk of a Complication? A Vignette Study.N. B. A. T. Janssen, F. J. Oort, P. Fockens, D. L. Willems, H. C. J. M. de Haes & E. M. A. Smets - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (5):276-282.
    Background: Discussing treatment risks has become increasingly important in medical communication. Still, despite regulations, physicians must decide how much and what kind of information to present. Objective: To investigate patients’ preference for information about a small risk of a complication of colonoscopy, and whether medical and personal factors contribute to such preference. To propose a disclosure policy related to our results. Design: Vignettes study. Setting: Department of Gastroenterology, Academic Medical Centre, the Netherlands. Patients: 810 consecutive colonoscopy patients. Intervention: A home-sent (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • High Hopes and Automatic Escalators: A Critique of Some New Arguments in Bioethics.S. Holm & T. Takala - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (1):1-4.
    Two protechnology arguments, the “hopeful principle” and the “automatic escalator”, often used in bioethics, are identified and critically analysed in this paper. It is shown that the hopeful principle is closely related to the problematic precautionary principle, and the automatic escalator argument has close affinities to the often criticised empirical slippery slope argument. The hopeful principle is shown to be really hopeless as an argument, and automatic escalator arguments often lead nowhere when critically analysed. These arguments should therefore only be (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • The Slippery Slope Argument.Wibren van der Burg - 1991 - Ethics 102 (1):42-65.
    I analyze three forms of the slippery slope argument (two logical and one empirical) using two questions: 1) in the context of what kind of norms are we considering a first step on a possible slope: statute law, precedent law, positive morality, or critical morality? 2) What is meant by "If we allow this first step"? The conclusion is that the argument's greatest force is in a context of institutionalized norms, like law, whereas its importance in morality is only marginal.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   31 citations  
  • Patient Understanding of Benefits, Risks, and Alternatives to Screening Colonoscopy.Peter H. Schwartz, Elizabeth Edenberg, Patrick R. Barrett, Susan M. Perkins, Eric M. Meslin & Thomas F. Imperiale - 2013 - Family Medicine 45 (2):83-89.
    While several tests and strategies are recommended for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, studies suggest that primary care providers often recommend colonoscopy without providing information about its risks or alternatives. These observations raise concerns about the quality of informed consent for screening colonoscopy.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation