Literature DB >> 16816045

Distinguishing treatment from research: a functional approach.

T Lewens1.   

Abstract

The best way to distinguish treatment from research is by their functions. This mode of distinction fits well with the basic ethical work that needs to be carried out. The distinction needs to serve as an ethical flag, highlighting areas in which the goals of doctors and patients are more likely than usual to diverge. The distinction also allows us to illuminate and understand some otherwise puzzling elements of debates on research ethics: it shows the peculiarity of exclusive conceptions of the distinction between research and treatment; it allows us to frame questions about therapeutic obligations in the research context, and it allows us to consider whether there may be research obligations in the therapeutic context.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16816045      PMCID: PMC2564493          DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.013078

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  6 in total

1.  Equipoise, knowledge and ethics in clinical research and practice.

Authors:  Richard Ashcroft
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 1.898

2.  A critique of clinical equipoise. Therapeutic misconception in the ethics of clinical trials.

Authors:  Franklin G Miller; Howard Brody
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.683

3.  Therapeutic obligation in clinical research.

Authors:  Charles Weijer; Paul B Miller
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.683

4.  When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits?

Authors:  Charles Weijer; Paul B Miller
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 53.440

Review 5.  Demarcating research and treatment: a systematic approach for the analysis of the ethics of clinical research.

Authors:  B Freedman; A Fuks; C Weijer
Journal:  Clin Res       Date:  1992-12

6.  False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception.

Authors:  P S Appelbaum; L H Roth; C W Lidz; P Benson; W Winslade
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 2.683

  6 in total
  6 in total

1.  Consenting of the vulnerable: the informed consent procedure in advanced cancer patients in Mexico.

Authors:  Emma L Verástegui
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2006-12-13       Impact factor: 2.652

2.  Patients' perceived purpose of clinical informed consent: Mill's individual autonomy model is preferred.

Authors:  Muhammad M Hammami; Eman A Al-Gaai; Yussuf Al-Jawarneh; Hala Amer; Muhammad B Hammami; Abdullah Eissa; Mohammad Al Qadire
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 2.652

3.  Untested, unproven, and unethical: the promotion and provision of autologous stem cell therapies in Australia.

Authors:  Alison K McLean; Cameron Stewart; Ian Kerridge
Journal:  Stem Cell Res Ther       Date:  2015-02-09       Impact factor: 6.832

Review 4.  The clinical investigator-subject relationship: a contextual approach.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Philos Ethics Humanit Med       Date:  2009-12-03       Impact factor: 2.464

5.  Current and emerging global themes in the bioethics of regenerative medicine: the tangled web of stem cell translation.

Authors:  Sarah Chan
Journal:  Regen Med       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 3.806

6.  Research Translation and Emerging Health Technologies: Synthetic Biology and Beyond.

Authors:  Sarah Chan
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2018-12
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.