000 04424nam a22005775i 4500
001 978-1-4020-8604-5
003 DE-He213
005 20161121230839.0
007 cr nn 008mamaa
008 100715s2008 ne | s |||| 0|eng d
020 _a9781402086045
_9978-1-4020-8604-5
024 7 _a10.1007/978-1-4020-8604-5
_2doi
050 4 _aQH332
050 4 _aR724-726.2
072 7 _aPSAD
_2bicssc
072 7 _aMB
_2bicssc
072 7 _aMED050000
_2bisacsh
082 0 4 _a610.1
_223
082 0 4 _a174.2
_223
100 1 _aBielby, Phil.
_eauthor.
245 1 0 _aCompetence and Vulnerability in Biomedical Research
_h[electronic resource] /
_cby Phil Bielby.
264 1 _aDordrecht :
_bSpringer Netherlands,
_c2008.
300 _aXIV, 236 p.
_bonline resource.
336 _atext
_btxt
_2rdacontent
337 _acomputer
_bc
_2rdamedia
338 _aonline resource
_bcr
_2rdacarrier
347 _atext file
_bPDF
_2rda
490 1 _aInternational Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine,
_x1567-8008 ;
_v40
505 0 _aFive Concepts of Competence -- Consent, Vulnerability and Research -- Gewirth’s Theory of Agency Rights -- Proportionality, Precaution and Judgments of Competence -- The Competences of Cognitively Vulnerable Groups -- Cognitive Vulnerability and Consent to Biomedical Research -- Cognitive Vulnerability and Consent to Biomedical Research in England and Wales -- Cognitive Vulnerability and Consent to Biomedical Research in the United States.
520 _aEnhanced knowledge of the nature and causes of mental disorder have led increasingly to a need for the recruitment of ‘cognitively vulnerable’ participants in biomedical research. These individuals often fall into the ‘grey area’ between obvious decisional competence and obvious decisional incompetence and, as a result, may not be recognised as having the legal capacity to make such decisions themselves. At the core of the ethical debate surrounding the participation of cognitively vulnerable individuals in research is when, if at all, we should judge them decisionally and legally competent to consent to or refuse research participation on their own behalf and when they should be judged incompetent in this respect. In this book, the author develops a novel justificatory framework for making judgments of decisional competence to consent to biomedical research with reference to five groups of cognitively vulnerable individuals - older children and adolescents, adults with intellectual disabilities, adults with depression, adults with schizophrenia and adults with dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease. Using this framework, the author argues that we can make morally defensible judgments about the competence or incompetence of a potential participant to give contemporaneous consent to research by having regard to whether a judgment of competence would be more harmful to the ‘generic rights’ of the potential participant than a judgment of incompetence. The argument is also used to justify an account of supported decision-making in research, and applied to evaluate the extent to which this approach is evident in existing ethical guidelines and legal provisions. The book will be of interest to bioethicists as well as psychiatrists and academic medical lawyers interested in normative questions raised by the concepts of competence and capacity. Dr Phil Bielby is a lecturer in the Law School and a member of the Institute of Applied Ethics at The University of Hull. He holds a PhD from The University of Sheffield and has published in the fields of bioethics, medical law and critical legal education.
650 0 _aMedicine.
650 0 _aEthics.
650 0 _aPsychiatry.
650 0 _aMedical ethics.
650 0 _aLaw
_xPhilosophy.
650 0 _aLaw.
650 0 _aMedical laws and legislation.
650 1 4 _aMedicine & Public Health.
650 2 4 _aTheory of Medicine/Bioethics.
650 2 4 _aEthics.
650 2 4 _aMedical Law.
650 2 4 _aPsychiatry.
650 2 4 _aTheories of Law, Philosophy of Law, Legal History.
710 2 _aSpringerLink (Online service)
773 0 _tSpringer eBooks
776 0 8 _iPrinted edition:
_z9781402086038
830 0 _aInternational Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine,
_x1567-8008 ;
_v40
856 4 0 _uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8604-5
912 _aZDB-2-SME
950 _aMedicine (Springer-11650)
999 _c504850
_d504850