Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. The Obligation to Participate in Biomedical Research.G. Owen Schaefer, Ezekiel J. Emanuel & Alan Wertheimer - 2009 - Journal of the American Medical Association 302 (1):67-72.
    The current prevailing view is that participation in biomedical research is above and beyond the call of duty. While some commentators have offered reasons against this, we propose a novel public goods argument for an obligation to participate in biomedical research. Biomedical knowledge is a public good, available to any individual even if that individual does not contribute to it. Participation in research is a critical way to support an important public good. Consequently, all have a duty to participate. The (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   40 citations  
  • Therapeutic Misconception in Clinical Research: Frequency and Risk Factors.Paul S. Appelbaum, Charles W. Lidz & Thomas Grisso - 2004 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 26 (2):1.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   63 citations  
  • Why Is Therapeutic Misconception So Prevalent?Charles W. Lidz, Karen Albert, Paul Appelbaum, Laura B. Dunn, Eve Overton & Ekaterina Pivovarova - 2015 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24 (2):231-241.
    Abstract:Therapeutic misconception (TM)—when clinical research participants fail to adequately grasp the difference between participating in a clinical trial and receiving ordinary clinical care—has long been recognized as a significant problem in consent to clinical trials. We suggest that TM does not primarily reflect inadequate disclosure or participants’ incompetence. Instead, TM arises from divergent primary cognitive frames. The researchers’ frame places the clinical trial in the context of scientific designs for assessing intervention efficacy. In contrast, most participants have a cognitive frame (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Mental Health Apps: Innovations, Risks and Ethical Considerations.Kyriaki G. Giota - 2014 - E-Health Telecommunication Systems and Networks 3:19-23.
    The purpose of this article is to briefly review some of the innovations that mobile mental health apps present to consumers and mental health practitioners. Particular attention was given to understanding some of the important risks and the potential ethical dilemmas which may arise for counselors and psychologists who embrace them in their practice. Key considerations of issues pertinent to regulations, privacy concerns, and research are being discussed.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations