Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorUrsin, Lars Øystein
dc.date.accessioned2015-01-29T14:54:30Z
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-14T11:59:55Z
dc.date.available2015-01-29T14:54:30Z
dc.date.available2015-12-14T11:59:55Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.identifier.citationHEC Forum 2010, 22(3):211-224nb_NO
dc.identifier.issn0956-2737
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2367626
dc.description.abstractThe papers in this special thematic issue of HEC Forum critically and carefully explore key issues at the intersection of patient privacy and commodification. For example, should hospitals be required to secure a person’s consent to any possible uses to which his discarded body parts might be put after his treatment or should it only be concerned with securing his informed consent to his treatment? Should a hospital be required to raise the possibility of the commodification of such (patient-discarded) body parts, or should it only be required to address this issue if the patient asks about it? Should persons be paid to engage in medical research, or should they only be compensated for their time, on the grounds, perhaps, that such payment would be coercive or exploitative, for it might move some persons to agree to participate in research who otherwise would not have done? This number of HEC Forum illustrates the widespread implications of these issues upon which healthcare ethics committees are called to deliberate.nb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.publisherSpringer Verlagnb_NO
dc.titlePrivacy and Property in the Biobank Contextnb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer revieweden_GB
dc.date.updated2015-01-29T14:54:30Z
dc.source.volume22nb_NO
dc.source.journalHEC Forumnb_NO
dc.source.issue3nb_NO
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10730-010-9135-4
dc.identifier.cristin516566
dc.description.localcodeThe Author(s) 2010. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com.nb_NO


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel