304 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16192147)
1. Vulnerability as the inability of researchers to act in the best interest of a subject.
VanderWalde AM
Am J Bioeth; 2004; 4(3):65-6; discussion W32. PubMed ID: 16192147
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Vulnerability to influence: a two-way street.
Henderson GE; Davis AM; King NM
Am J Bioeth; 2004; 4(3):50-2; discussion W32. PubMed ID: 16192139
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Vulnerability in human subject research: existential state, not category designation.
Finder SG
Am J Bioeth; 2004; 4(3):68-70; discussion W32. PubMed ID: 16192149
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Unacceptable risk in pregnancy: whose choice and responsibility?
Perry C
Am J Bioeth; 2011 May; 11(5):64-5. PubMed ID: 21534159
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Respect as an organizing normative category for research ethics.
McGuire AL; McCullough LB
Am J Bioeth; 2005; 5(1):W1-2. PubMed ID: 16036642
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Physician duties in the conduct of human subject research.
Fried E
Account Res; 2001; 8(4):349-75. PubMed ID: 12481789
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The right to withdraw from research.
Schaefer GO; Wertheimer A
Kennedy Inst Ethics J; 2010 Dec; 20(4):329-52. PubMed ID: 21338028
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Vulnerability: a needed moral safeguard.
DeMarco JP
Am J Bioeth; 2004; 4(3):82-4; discussion W32. PubMed ID: 16192156
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Relationships with test-tubes: where's the reciprocity?
Fryer-Edwards K; Fullerton SM
Am J Bioeth; 2006; 6(6):36-8; author reply W10-2. PubMed ID: 17085405
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The fetus as a patient and the ethics of human subjects research: response to commentaries on "An ethically justified framework for clinical investigation to benefit pregnant and fetal patients".
McCullough LB; Chervenak FA
Am J Bioeth; 2011 May; 11(5):W3-7. PubMed ID: 21534136
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Reflections on 'Rethinking research ethics'.
Levine RJ
Am J Bioeth; 2005; 5(1):1-3; author reply W15-8. PubMed ID: 16036649
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Rethinking research ethics.
Rhodes R
Am J Bioeth; 2005; 5(1):7-28. PubMed ID: 16036651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The therapeutic misconception, beneficence, and respect.
Fried E
Account Res; 2001; 8(4):331-48. PubMed ID: 12481794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Ethical considerations in the communication of unexpected information with clinical implications.
Lavieri RR; Garner SA
Am J Bioeth; 2006; 6(6):46-8; author reply W10-2. PubMed ID: 17085410
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. A legal duty to disclose individual research findings to research subjects?
Gordon MP
Food Drug Law J; 2009; 64(1):225-60. PubMed ID: 19998747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A clinical perspective on placebo research: looking back, looking forward.
Dworkin RW
Am J Bioeth; 2009 Sep; 9(9):54-5. PubMed ID: 19998196
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Beneficence, scientific autonomy, and self-interest: ethical dilemmas in clinical research.
Pellegrino ED
Camb Q Healthc Ethics; 1992; 1(4):361-9. PubMed ID: 1342357
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Power, advocacy, and informed consent forms.
Smith ML
J Calif Alliance Ment Ill; 1994; 5(1):25-7. PubMed ID: 11653311
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Does it matter whether investigators intend to benefit research subjects?
Wendler D; Abdoler E
Kennedy Inst Ethics J; 2010 Dec; 20(4):353-70. PubMed ID: 21338029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Moral conflict in clinical trials.
Merritt M
Ethics; 2005 Jan; 115(2):306-30. PubMed ID: 16127863
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
