368 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16538801)
1. Old legacies and new paradigms: confusing "research" and "treatment" and its consequences in responding to emergent health threats.
Javitt GH
J Health Care Law Policy; 2005; 8(1):38-70. PubMed ID: 16538801
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Informed consent and public health: are they compatible when it comes to vaccines?
Parmet WE
J Health Care Law Policy; 2005; 8(1):71-110. PubMed ID: 16538802
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Bearing true faith and allegiance? Allowing recovery for soldiers under fire in military experiments that violate the Nuremberg Code.
O'Connor MJ
Suffolk Transnatl Law R; 2002; 25(3):649-86. PubMed ID: 16514768
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Informed consent and investigational new drug abuses in the U.S. military.
Cummings ML
Account Res; 2002; 9(2):93-103. PubMed ID: 12625353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. FDA seeks public comment on informed consent rules in combat situations.
Hastings Cent Rep; 1997; 27(5):43. PubMed ID: 11645003
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Walking a thin line: distinguishing between research and medical practice during Operation Desert Storm.
Schuchardt EJ
Columbia J Law Soc Probl; 1992; 26(1):77-115. PubMed ID: 11651647
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. A military exception to "informed consent": Doe v. Sullivan.
Moran PJ
St Johns Law Rev; 1993; 66(3):847-63. PubMed ID: 11652729
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Gulf War guinea pigs: is informed consent optional during war?
Milner CA
J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1996; 13(1):199-232. PubMed ID: 9068242
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Walking a thin line: distinguishing between research and medical practice during Operation Desert Storm.
Schuchardt EJ
Spec Law Dig Health Care Law; 1993 Nov; (177):9-47. PubMed ID: 10130675
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. A new world order for human experiments.
Moreno JD
Account Res; 2003; 10(1):47-56. PubMed ID: 14552300
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Medical testing: issues and ethics.
Mossman KL
Forum Appl Res Public Policy; 1997; 12(3):90-101. PubMed ID: 12962094
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The front lines of biowarfare: today's anti-terrorism effort casts early test subjects in new light.
Snyder D
Washington Post; 2003 May; ():B1, B5. PubMed ID: 12812180
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Justiciability--waiving for the flag: should informed consent rules apply in the context of military emergencies?
Seftel SB
George Washington Law Rev; 1992 Jun; 60(5):1387-435. PubMed ID: 16086522
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Secret human experiments test trust in government.
Guttman D
Forum Appl Res Public Policy; 1997; 12(3):109-14. PubMed ID: 12962097
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Congressmen say military should have the right to informed consent.
Maloney DM
Hum Res Rep; 2005 Mar; 20(3):9. PubMed ID: 15856567
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Waivers for military use of investigational agents.
Poikonen J; McCart GM; Veatch RM
Am J Hosp Pharm; 1991 Jul; 48(7):1525; discussion 1525-9. PubMed ID: 1882884
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Clinical trials. New rule triggers debate over best way to test drugs.
Couzin J
Science; 2003 Mar; 299(5613):1651-3. PubMed ID: 12637715
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Informed consent in the military: fighting a losing battle against the anthrax vaccine.
Miller RK
Am J Law Med; 2002; 28(2-3):325-43. PubMed ID: 12197468
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Protecting soldiers from friendly fire: the consent requirement for using investigational drugs and vaccines in combat.
Annas GJ
Am J Law Med; 1998; 24(2-3):245-60. PubMed ID: 9702274
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Canada: Soldiers have right to refuse anthrax vaccine.
Walker R
Christ Sci Monitor (East Ed); 2000 May; 92(17):7. PubMed ID: 15586926
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
