Order:
  1.  10
    Incision or insertion makes a medical intervention invasive. Commentary on 'What makes a medical intervention invasive?Paul Affleck, Julia Cons & Simon E. Kolstoe - 2024 - Journal of Medical Ethics 50 (4):242-243.
    De Marco and colleagues claim that the standard account of invasiveness as commonly encountered ‘...does not capture all uses of the term in relation to medical interventions 1 ’. This is open to challenge. Their first example is ‘non-invasive prenatal testing’. Because it involves puncturing the skin to obtain blood, De Marco _et al_ take this as an example of how an incision or insertion is not sufficient to make an intervention invasive; here is a procedure that involves an incision, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  2.  11
    Reshaping consent so we might improve participant choice (II) – helping people decide.Hugh Davies, Rosie Munday, Maeve O’Reilly, Catriona Gilmour Hamilton, Arzhang Ardahan, Simon E. Kolstoe & Katie Gillies - 2023 - Research Ethics 19 (4):466-473.
    Research consent processes must provide potential participants with the necessary information to help them decide if they wish to join a study. On the Oxford ‘A’ Research Ethics Committee we’ve found that current research proposals mostly provide adequate detail (even if not in an easily comprehensible format), but often fail to support decision making, a view supported by published evidence. In a previous paper, we described how consent might be structured, and here we develop the concept of an Information and (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3.  7
    Research approvals iceberg: helping it melt away.Simon E. Kolstoe & David Carpenter - 2019 - BMC Medical Ethics 20 (1):1-4.
    In their paper “Research approvals iceberg: how a ‘low-key’ study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better” Petrova and Barclay highlight concerns with the health research regulatory environment in the UK. As long-standing chairs of NHS research ethics committees, researchers, and also academics in research ethics, we are also often frustrated with the regulatory process in the UK. However, we think that Petrova and Barclay’s analysis is misleading because it conflates research ethics with (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation