PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Biomedical Ethics Advisory Committee”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

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

At least 199 records · Page 11Linked to original sources
PubMed1996

Requiem or renaissance for the law reform commission of Canada?

From 1975 to 1992, the protection of life project of the Law Reform Commission of Canada sought to help society answer some of the legal and bioethical riddles posed by the biomedical revolution, particularly as these developments affected the protection of human life, public safety and fundamental values. A focus on the risks, benefits, rights and duties associated with biomedical sciences and technology provided the project both a means of inquiry into pressing health law and bioethics questions, and a methodology of law reform. The inquiry was often applied through a transdisciplinary perspective, to such topics as the redefinition of death, medically assisted procreation, behavioral alteration, human experimentation, organ transplantation, consent, and the criminal law. Amid recent initiatives to resurrect the Commission, the contributions of the protection of life project are likely to be judged by the bioethico-legal decision-making, dispute resolution, legislative or regulatory enactments and court decisions influenced by its corpus of thought.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed1986

The artificial heart's threat to others.

A member of the two federal advisory panels on artificial hearts reflects that the nuclear-powered artificial heart, had it been developed, would have posed a physical threat to others. Today's artificial heart poses a different threat. Because of the high costs, many people may be deprived of access to other forms of medical care and other social goods.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed2004

Valuing risk: the ethical review of clinical trial safety.

Despite its mandate on minimizing harms in clinical trials, the Common Rule provides little guidance as to how IRBs should evaluate risk. The Common Rule and derivative commentaries tend to conceptualize risk review as an expert-based endeavor aimed at an objective and universal evaluation of possible harm; they also have tended to locate risk in the research activity itself rather than in the context of research. These views of risk conflict with scholarship showing that risk evaluations are socially determined even among experts, that the context of harms can influence how persons evaluate risks, and that forums that approach risk assessment as a technical endeavor bracket from discussion the numerous values that ground risk judgments. Possible reforms are proposed for clinical trial risk review that would render it more inclusive of the different types of risk encountered and more attuned to the priorities of trial subjects.

Academic Medical Centers↗
PubMed1993

Hasty compassion.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Advisory Committees↗