Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. (2 other versions)Challenges in the Federal Regulation of Pain Management Technologies.Lars Noah - 2003 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 31 (1):55-74.
    Those who write about pain management have focused almost entirely on delivery issues, paying essentially no attention to the federal regulatory challenges that affect the development of pain relief technologies — namely, pharmaceuticals and medical devices indicated for analgesic uses. The academic literature is strangely devoid of any sophisticated discussion of the difficulties that attend, first, the product approval decisions of the Food and Drug Administration and, second, the scheduling decisions made by the Drug Enforcement Administration. If a “bottleneck” develops (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • (2 other versions)Challenges in the Federal Regulation of Pain Management Technologies.Lars Noah - 2003 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 31 (1):55-74.
    Those who write about pain management have focused almost entirely on delivery issues, paying essentially no attention to the federal regulatory challenges that affect the development of pain relief technologies — namely, pharmaceuticals and medical devices indicated for analgesic uses. The academic literature is strangely devoid of any sophisticated discussion of the difficulties that attend, first, the product approval decisions of the Food and Drug Administration and, second, the scheduling decisions made by the Drug Enforcement Administration. If a “bottleneck” develops (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • (1 other version)Owning up to Our Agendas: On the Role and Limits of Science in Debates about Embryos and Brain Death.George Khushf - 2006 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (1):58-76.
    ”Merely fact-minded sciences make merely factminded people.”“ …the positivistic concept of science in our time is, historically speaking, a residual concept. It has dropped all the questions which had been considered under the now narrower, now broader concepts of metaphysics….all these ‘metaphysical’ questions, taken broadly – commonly called specifically philosophical questions – surpass the world understood as the universe of mere facts. They surpass it precisely as being questions with the idea of reason in mind. And they all claim a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • (1 other version)Owning up to our Agendas: On the Role and Limits of Science in Debates about Embryos and Brain Death.George Khushf - 2006 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (1):58-76.
    The ethical issues integral to embryo research and brain death are intertwined with comprehensive views of life that are not explicitly discussed in most policy debate. I consider three representative views – a naturalist, romantic, and theist – and show how these might inform the way practical ethical issues are addressed. I then consider in detail one influential argument in embryo research that attempts to bypass deep values. I show that this twinning argument is deeply flawed. It presupposes naturalist commitments (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • (1 other version)The Social Conditions for Nanomedicine: Disruption, Systems, and Lock-in.Robert Best & George Khushf - 2006 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (4):733-740.
    Here we consider two ways that nanomedicine might be disruptive. First, low-end disruptions that are intrinsically unpredictable but limited in scope, and second, high end disruptions that involve broader societal issues but can be anticipated, allowing opportunity for ethical reflection.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • (1 other version)The Social Conditions for Nanomedicine: Disruption, Systems, and Lock-In.Robert Best & George Khushf - 2006 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (4):733-740.
    Many believe that nanotechnology will be disruptive to our society. Presumably, this means that some people and even whole industries will be undermined by technological developments that nanoscience makes possible. This, in turn, implies that we should anticipate potential workforce disruptions, mitigate in advance social problems likely to arise, and work to fairly distribute the future benefits of nanotechnology. This general, somewhat vague sense of disruption, is very difficult to specify – what will it entail? And how can we responsibly (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations