Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Fifth Amendment”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

[Helsinki Declaration VI: a necessary revision, but sufficient?].

With the fifth amendment of the Declaration of Helsinki (Edinburg, 2000), the World Medical Association took a fundamental step forward in the history of the document, after years of internal and external debate. The Declaration was firstly adopted in 1964 as a clear intent to show that the medical profession could manage the ethical control of medical research with human beings. However, several disgraced episodes, like the Tuskegee Syphilis study, showed the insufficiency of such a system. An external control in the form of legal regulation was then proposed. Paradoxically, the importance of the Declaration did not decrease because many national regulations included it as a reference, actually providing it a legal status. But, though formally important, the Declaration hardly had an impact on real-world terms, because it assumed an old-fashion logic of clinical research failing to incorporate the modern methodological developments. The amendment could not be put off longer. In the present paper, I analyse the main shortcomings of the Declaration before the 2000 amendment and to what extent the fifth revision has corrected them.

Helsinki Declaration↗
PubMed1985

Miranda comes to the hospital: the right to remain silent in civil commitment.

One procedural protection that has not generally made the transition from the criminal justice system to involuntary civil commitment is the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. The authors present the results of a study of the implementation of the right to remain silent, which demonstrate that warning patients that anything they say may be used against them in the commitment hearing has little impact on their willingness to talk to staff or to cooperate with treatment. The authors discuss the possible reasons for their findings.

Adult↗