- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
The Concept of Minimal Risk: The Need for Better Guidance on the Ethics Review Process
American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):27 - 29 (2011)
Abstract
The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 11, Issue 6, Page 27-29, June 2011Other Versions
No versions found
My notes
Similar books and articles
Minimal Risk Remains an Open Question.Ariella Binik, Charles Weijer & Mark Sheehan - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):25 - 27.
The Dangers of Using a Relative Risk Standard for Minimal Risk.Seema Shah - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):22 - 23.
Regulating “Higher Risk, No Direct Benefit” Studies in Minors.Anna E. Westra, Jan M. Wit, Rám N. Sukhai & Inez D. de Beaufort - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):29 - 31.
A Relative Standard for Minimal Risk is Unnecessary and Potentially Harmful to Children: Lessons from the Phambili Trial.Robert M. Nelson - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):14 - 16.
Why We Don't Need a Relative Risk Standard for Adolescent HIV Vaccine Trials in South Africa.Catherine M. Slack - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):21 - 22.
Uniqueness, Exploitation, and Relative Risk Standards in Adolescent Research.Janet Malek - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):23 - 25.
The “Slow Code” Should Be a “No Code”.Ann Weinacker - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (11):27-29.
Ensuring Consent to Research is Voluntary: How Far Do We Need to Go?Susan Bull & Graham Charles Lindegger - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (8):27-29.
Clarifying the Ethics of Continuous Sedation.Jeffrey T. Berger - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):46 - 47.
A Rational Basis for Chemoprevention of Prostate Cancer.Caroline J. Huang & Matthew L. Baum - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (12):27-29.
Analytics
Added to PP
2011-06-15
Downloads
37 (#607,693)
6 months
9 (#477,108)
2011-06-15
Downloads
37 (#607,693)
6 months
9 (#477,108)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Using the Lives of Children Who Are Thriving as a Baseline for Minimal Risk Is not Useful for IRB Determinations.Judith Navratil & Melissa Miklos - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics 14 (9):21-22.
References found in this work
The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics.Ezekiel J. Emanuel (ed.) - 2008 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Defining and Describing Benefit Appropriately in Clinical Trials.Nancy M. P. King - 2000 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 28 (4):332-343.
Minimal risk as an international ethical standard in research.Loretta M. Kopelman - 2004 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (3):351 – 378.
Philosophical justifications of informed consent in research.D. Brock, E. J. Emanuel, C. Grady, R. Lie, F. Miller & D. Wendler - 2008 - In Ezekiel J. Emanuel (ed.), The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
In Loco Parentis Minimal Risk as an Ethical Threshold for Research upon Children.Benjamin Freedman, Abraham Fuks & Charles Weijer - 1993 - Hastings Center Report 23 (2):13-19.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-667477cd97-wmc4m dc2