"Fair's fair argument" and voluntarism in clinical research: But, is it fair?

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 32, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 478-482

  Perna, Maria Antonietta ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL MEDICINE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL STUDY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION; POPULATION RESEARCH; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; VOLUNTARY PROGRAM;

CLINICAL TRIALS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; ETHICS, RESEARCH; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PATIENT RIGHTS; PATIENT SELECTION; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; RISK; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 33747045771     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.013763     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Evans HM. Should patients be allowed to veto their participation in clinical research? J Med Ethics 2004;30:198-203.
2. Resnik DB. Eliminating the daily life risks standard from the definition of minimal risk. J Med Ethics 2005;31:35-8.
3. Jadad A. Randomised controlled trials. London: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, 1998.
4. World Medical Assembly. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Edinburgh: 52nd WMA General Assembly, 2000.
5. Campbell A, Gillett G, Jones G. Medical ethics, 3rd edn. Victoria, Australia: Oxford University Press, 2001.
6. Sherrin N, ed. Oxford dictionary of humorous quotations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.