Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


PhilPapersPhilPeoplePhilArchivePhilEventsPhilJobs
Switch to: References

Add citations

You mustlogin to add citations.
  1. Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention.Susanne Rebers,Neil K. Aaronson,Flora E. van Leeuwen &Marjanka K. Schmidt -2016 -BMC Medical Ethics 17 (1):1-11.
    BackgroundIn specific situations it may be necessary to make an exception to the general rule of informed consent for scientific research with an intervention. Earlier reviews only described subsets of arguments for exceptions to waive consent.MethodsHere, we provide a more extensive literature review of possible exceptions to the rule of informed consent and the accompanying arguments based on literature from 1997 onwards, using both Pubmed and PsycINFO in our search strategy.ResultsWe identified three main categories of arguments for the acceptability of (...) a consent waiver: data validity and quality, major practical problems, and distress or confusion of participants. Approval by a medical ethical review board always needs to be obtained. Further, we provide examples of specific conditions under which consent waiving might be allowed, such as additional privacy protection measures.ConclusionsThe reasons legitimized by the authors of the papers in this overview can be used by researchers to form their own opinion about requesting an exception to the rule of informed consent for their own study. Importantly, rules and guidelines applicable in their country, institute and research field should be followed. Moreover, researchers should also take the conditions under which they feel an exception is legitimized under consideration. After discussions with relevant stakeholders, a formal request should be sent to an IRB. (shrink)
    Direct download(4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • ‘Synthetic Blood’: Entangling Politics and Biology.Darian Meacham &Julie Kent -2019 -Body and Society 25 (2):28-55.
    It is increasingly suggested that shortages in the supply chain for human blood could be met by the development of techniques to manufacture human blood ex vivo. These techniques fall broadly under the umbrella of synthetic biology. We examine the biopolitical context surrounding the ex vivo culture of red blood cells through the linked concepts of alienation, immunity, bio-value and biosecuritization. We engage with diverse meanings of synthetic blood, and questions about how the discourses of biosecurity and privatization of risk (...) are linked to claims that the technology will address unmet needs and promote social justice. Through our discussion we contrast communitarian ideas that culturing red blood cells ‘extends the gift’ of adult blood donation with understandings of the immunitary logics that underpin the cord-blood economy. (shrink)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Community consultation: Not the problem - an important part of the solution.Neal W. Dickert &Jeremy Sugarman -2006 -American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):26 – 28.
  • The role of community consultation in the ethical conduct of research without consent.Lynne D. Richardson,Rosamond Rhodes,Deborah Fish Ragin &Ilene Wilets -2006 -American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):33 – 35.
  • 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.
  • Emergency research and consent: Keeping the exception from undermining the rule.Arthur R. Derse -2006 -American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):36 – 37.
  • The meaning of community consultation.Terri A. Schmidt,Nicole M. DeIorio &Katie B. McClure -2006 -American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):30 – 32.
  • Unproven or unsatisfactory versus equipoise in emergency research with waived consent.Ryan Spellecy -2006 -American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):44 – 45.
  • Acting out of ethics: What the open letter asks.John Lunstroth -2006 -American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):41 – 43.
  • How confidential trial negotiations and agreements between the food and drug administration and sponsors marginalize local institutional review boards, and what to do about it.Howard Mann -2006 -American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):22 – 24.
  • Is the community consultation requirement necessary?Mark Sheehan -2006 -American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):38 – 40.
  • Letter to the Editor: In Defense of the PolyHeme® Trial.Anne Hamilton Dougherty -2006 -American Journal of Bioethics 6 (5):W35-W37.
  • Blood, sweat and tears.David Magnus -2006 -American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):1 – 2.
    Direct download(4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  

  • [8]ページ先頭

    ©2009-2025 Movatter.jp