Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. “Through a Glass Darkly”: Researcher Ethnocentrism and the Demonization of Research Participants.John A. Lynch - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):22-23.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Dropout by Design: Advance Planning for Research Participant Noncompliance.Toby Schonfeld & James Anderson - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):18-20.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Role, Remit and Function of the Research Ethics Committee — 4. Limits to Consent?Sarah J. L. Edwards - 2010 - Research Ethics 6 (4):159-163.
    This is the fourth in a series of five papers on the role, remit and function of research ethics committees which are intended to provide for REC members a broad understanding of the most important issues in research ethics and governance. This paper explores the role of ethics committees in reviewing proposed conditions for recruiting human subjects and in checking the intended procedures for gaining consent. In so doing the paper will reiterate the conditions which are traditionally thought to make (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Known Versus Unknown Threats to Internal Validity: A Response to Edwards.Stephen Rice & David Trafimow - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):20-21.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Subversive Subjects: Rule-Breaking and Deception in Clinical Trials.Rebecca Dresser - 2013 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 41 (4):829-840.
    Scientific reports about clinical research appear objective and straightforward. They describe a study's findings, methods, subject population, number of subjects, and contribution to existing knowledge. The overall picture is pristine: the research team establishes the requirements of study participation and subjects conform to these requirements. Readers are left with the impression that everything was done correctly, by the book.In other places, however, one finds a different and messier picture of clinical research. In this picture, research subjects deviate from the prescribed (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Views on the right to withdraw from randomised controlled trials assessing quality of life after mastectomy and breast reconstruction (QUEST): findings from the QUEST perspectives study (QPS).N. Bidad, L. MacDonald, Z. E. Winters, S. J. L. Edwards & R. Horne - 2014 - Research Ethics 10 (1):47-57.
    The purpose of this study is to examine the importance that real patients attach to their right to withdraw from an on-going feasibility randomised trial (RCT) evaluating types and timings of breast reconstruction (two parallel trials) following mastectomy for breast cancer. Our results show that, while some respondents appreciated that exercising the right to withdraw would defeat the scientific objective of the trial, some patients with a surgical preference consented only given the knowledge they could withdraw if they were not (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Perspective of an IRB Member.Stephen S. Hanson - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):25-27.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Case Against Contract: Participant and Investigator Duty in Clinical Trials.Kenneth De Ville - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):16-18.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • The Subject–Researcher Relationship: In Defense of Contracting Around Default Rules.Michelle N. Meyer - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):27-30.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Research Subject as Identified Problem.Paul Root Wolpe - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):1-2.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Assessing the Remedy: The Case for Contracts in Clinical Trials”.Sarah J. L. Edwards - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):W1-W3.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Reevaluating the Right to Withdraw From Research Without Penalty.G. Owen Schaefer & Alan Wertheimer - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):14-16.
    In “Assessing the Remedy: The Case for Contracts in Clinical Trials,” Sarah Edwards (2011) proposes that research participants acquire contractual obligations to investigators, thus opening the doo...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Contractual Duties in Research, Surrogacy, and Stem Cell Donation.John A. Robertson - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):13-14.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Can Contracts Enhance Participant Autonomy in Clinical Trials?Diana Buccafurni - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):24-25.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation