Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Genetic Enhancement in Sports: The Role of Reason and Private Rationalities in the Public Arena.Silvia Camporesi & Paolo Maugeri - 2011 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20 (2):248-257.
    Reviews of philosophical books run the risk of being either excessively and unconstructively critical or superficially praiseworthy. To avoid both these risks, we test the approach outlined by Häyry in his book Rationality and the Genetic Challenge: Making People Better? by applying it to an eighth genetic challenge, namely, a variation of the genetic enhancement challenge discussed by Häyry as it applies to sports. We assess whether genetic enhancement in sports should be conceived as an eighth wonder or an eighth (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Biobanks--When is Re-consent Necessary?K. S. Steinsbekk & B. Solberg - 2011 - Public Health Ethics 4 (3):236-250.
    The unknown nature of tomorrow’s research makes informed consent in biobank research a challenge. Whether the consent given by biobank participants is ‘broad’ or ‘narrow’, the ever present question remains the same: are new activities covered by the original consent? In this article, we focus on the meaning of, and the relation between, broad consent and re-consent in biobank research. We argue that broad consent should be understood as consenting to a framework—a framework which covers aims, core conditions for acceptable (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Ethical signposts for clinical geneticists in secondary variant and incidental finding disclosure discussions.Gabrielle M. Christenhusz, Koenraad Devriendt, Hilde Van Esch & Kris Dierickx - 2015 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 18 (3):361-370.
    While ethical and empirical interest in so-called secondary variants and incidental findings in clinical genetics contexts is growing, critical reflection on the ethical foundations of the various recommendations proposed is thus far largely lacking. We examine and critique the ethical justifications of the three most prominent disclosure positions: briefly, the clinical geneticist decides, a joint decision, and the patient decides. Subsequently, instead of immediately developing a new disclosure option, we explore relevant foundational ethical values and norms, drawing on the normative (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations