PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Social Control, Informal”

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 577 records · Page 32Linked to original sources
PubMed1988

Raping and making love are different concepts: so are killing and voluntary euthanasia.

The distinction between 'kill' and 'help to die' is argued by analogy with the distinction between 'rape' and 'make love to'. The difference is the consent of the receiver of the act, therefore 'kill' is the wrong word for an act of active voluntary euthanasia. The argument that doctors must not be allowed by law to perform active voluntary euthanasia because this would recognise an infringement of the sanctity of life ('the red light principle') is countered by comparing such doctors with the drivers of emergency vehicles, who are allowed to drive through red lights.

Euthanasia↗
PubMed2004

The First Amendment and scientific freedom in the era of bioterrorism.

The events of 9/11 have raised awareness that certain scientific research in the public domain may aid terrorists in their quest to develop biological weapons, and there is a legitimate cause for concern in rare cases. Proposed executive branch responses are consistent in their approach to the problem: restrain the offending research by restricting public access to it in some form or another. This paper examines some of the history of the United States (U.S.) government's restrictions on scientific communication and the protection that the First Amendment affords scientists against such restrictions. It focuses in particular on biological science, which has in recent years come under increased scrutiny due to fears of "bioterrorism." It concludes that science needs to be vigilant against government encroachment, but also needs to become the first line of defense in preventing dissemination of potentially dangerous research data. Should the exercise of prior restraint against biological research become necessary, the guidelines developed at the 2002 Monterey workshop provide a useful framework for determining what biological research might cause "direct, immediate, and irreparable" harm to national security under the New York Times Co. v. United States precedent.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed1995

Deception methods in psychology: have they changed in 23 years?

To learn whether criticism and regulation of research practices have been followed by a reduction of deception or use of more acceptable approaches to deception, the contents of all 1969, 1978, 1986, and 1992 issues of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology were examined. Deception research was coded according to type of (non)informing (e.g., false informing, consent to deception, no informing), possible harmfulness of deception employed (e.g., powerfulness of induction, morality of the behavior induced, privacy of behavior), method of deception (e.g., bogus device or role, false purpose of study, false feedback), and debriefing employed. Use of confederates has been partly replaced by uses of computers. "Consent" with false informing declined after 1969, then rose in 1992. Changes in the topics studied (e.g., attribution, socialization, personality) largely accounted for the decline in deception in 1978 and 1986. More attention needs to be given to ways of respecting subjects' autonomy, to appropriate debriefing and desensitizing, and to selecting the most valid and least objectionable deception methods.

Behavioral Research↗