PubMed · 14635632
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Elysa Koppelman. 2003. About autonomy.. https://doi.org/10.1162/152651603102388009
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
In this article, the author addresses the ethical questions and decision evaluators associated with the writing of psychological assessment reports. Issues related to confidentiality, clinical judgment, harm, labeling, release of test data, and computer usage are addressed. Specific suggestions on how to deal with ethical concerns when writing reports are discussed, as well as areas in need of further research.
The treatment of the control group in externally sponsored clinical trials is the issue of one of the most heated debates in international research ethics. The paradigmatic cases are the mother-to-child HIV-transmission trials that took place in 16 developing countries in 1997, where the control group received a placebo while proven treatment was available in industrialized countries. From this circumstance results the controversy as to whether the sponsor and researchers of externally sponsored trials have to supply a treatment that is usually not available in the host country. From the beginning of the debate the controversial level of treatment has been called "standard of care". However, besides the disagreement about the quality of the care that has to be supplied, there is as yet no widely accepted clear meaning of this concept. This article examines the fundamental ambiguity of the term and its formal function as an ethical criterion including suggestions on its further use.
Whereas previous discussions on ownership of biological material have been much informed by the natural rights tradition, insufficient attention has been paid to the strand in liberal political theory represented by Felix Cohen, Tony Honoré, and others, which treats property relations as socially constructed bundles of rights. In accordance with that tradition, we propose that the primary normative issue is what combination of rights a person should have to a particular item of biological material. Whether that bundle qualifies to be called "property" or "ownership" is a secondary, terminological issue. We suggest five principles of bodily rights and show how they can be applied to the construction of ethically appropriate bundles of rights to biological material.