4 found
Order:
  1. Reframing Consent for Clinical Research: A Function-Based Approach.Scott Y. H. Kim, David Wendler, Kevin P. Weinfurt, Robert Silbergleit, Rebecca D. Pentz, Franklin G. Miller, Bernard Lo, Steven Joffe, Christine Grady, Sara F. Goldkind, Nir Eyal & Neal W. Dickert - 2017 - American Journal of Bioethics 17 (12):3-11.
    Although informed consent is important in clinical research, questions persist regarding when it is necessary, what it requires, and how it should be obtained. The standard view in research ethics is that the function of informed consent is to respect individual autonomy. However, consent processes are multidimensional and serve other ethical functions as well. These functions deserve particular attention when barriers to consent exist. We argue that consent serves seven ethically important and conceptually distinct functions. The first four functions pertain (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   59 citations  
  2.  43
    Behavioral Equipoise: A Way to Resolve Ethical Stalemates in Clinical Research.Robert Silbergleit & Peter A. Ubel - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (2):1-8.
    Randomized trials depend on clinicians feeling that they are morally justified in allowing their patients to be randomized across treatment arms. Typically such justification rides on what has been called “clinical equipoise”—when there is disagreement of opinion among the community of experts about whether one treatment is better than another, then physicians can ethically enter their patients into a clinical trial, even if individual physicians are not at equipoise. Recent debates over prominent studies, however, illustrate that controversy can be easily (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  3.  40
    What treatments are "satisfactory?" Divining regulatory intent and an ethical basis for exception to informed consent for emergency research.Robert Silbergleit, Drew Watters & Michael R. Sayre - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):24 – 26.
  4.  22
    Science and Behavior.Robert Silbergleit & Peter A. Ubel - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (2):W1 - W2.
    Randomized trials depend on clinicians feeling that they are morally justified in allowing their patients to be randomized across treatment arms. Typically such justification rides on what has been called “clinical equipoise”—when there is disagreement of opinion among the community of experts about whether one treatment is better than another, then physicians can ethically enter their patients into a clinical trial, even if individual physicians are not at equipoise. Recent debates over prominent studies, however, illustrate that controversy can be easily (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark