|
Volumn 52, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 408-413
|
When caring for critically ill patients, do clinicians have a responsibility to be innovative and try unproven approaches when accepted approaches are failing?
|
Author keywords
Adventurism; Clinical research; Clinical trials; Ethics; Evidence based medicine; FDA; Food and Drug Administration; Investigational drugs; Patient safety
|
Indexed keywords
NEW DRUG;
CLINICAL TRIAL;
CONFERENCE PAPER;
CRITICALLY ILL PATIENT;
DRUG APPROVAL;
DRUG SAFETY;
EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE;
EXPERIMENTAL THERAPY;
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;
GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE;
HUMAN;
INTENSIVE CARE;
INTENSIVE CARE UNIT;
LAW;
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING;
MEDICAL ETHICS;
MEDICAL SPECIALIST;
MORALITY;
PATIENT SAFETY;
RESPONSIBILITY;
TREATMENT FAILURE;
ARTICLE;
CRITICAL ILLNESS;
DECISION MAKING;
ETHICS;
LEGAL ASPECT;
PATIENT RIGHT;
TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT;
UNITED STATES;
CRITICAL ILLNESS;
DECISION MAKING;
DRUG APPROVAL;
DRUGS, INVESTIGATIONAL;
EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE;
HUMANS;
INTENSIVE CARE;
INTENSIVE CARE UNITS;
PATIENT RIGHTS;
TERMINALLY ILL;
UNITED STATES;
UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;
|
EID: 34250613179
PISSN: 00201324
EISSN: None
Source Type: Journal
DOI: None Document Type: Conference Paper |
Times cited : (7)
|
References (12)
|