Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 4.830
Filtrar
2.
J Korean Med Sci ; 36(3): e31, 2021 Jan 18.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33463097

RESUMEN

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has caused a breakdown in the healthcare system worldwide. The need to rapidly update guidelines in order to control the transmission in the population and for evidenced-based healthcare care has led to the need for timely, voluminous and valid research. Amid the quest for a vaccine and better therapies, researchers clamouring for information has led to a wide variety of ethical issues due to the unique situation. This paper aims to examine the positive and negative aspects of recent changes in the process of obtaining informed consent. The article outlines the various aspects, from history, previously described exemptions to consenting as well as those implemented during the pandemic and the current impact of virtual methods. Further, the authors make recommendations based on the outcome of suggested adjustments described in the literature. This article looks into increasing the awareness of physicians and researchers about ethical issues that need to be addressed to provide optimal care for patients while assuring their integrity and confidentiality.


Asunto(s)
Consentimiento Informado/ética , Edición/ética , /prevención & control , /transmisión , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Disparidades en Atención de Salud/ética , Humanos , Pandemias , Educación del Paciente como Asunto/ética , Relaciones Médico-Paciente/ética
4.
Bioethics ; 35(3): 237-245, 2021 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33393089

RESUMEN

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, some authors have advocated a program of controlled voluntary infection (CVI) with SARS-CoV-2. Under CVI, during periods where the medical system is under capacity, volunteers from low-risk groups would be intentionally infected after giving informed consent, and then quarantined until they have developed immunity. Proponents claim that this could have benefits for society, such as building herd immunity and ensuring that critical workers won't be incapacitated during the peak of the infection. They also claim that this could have benefits for individuals, such as being safely exempted from lockdown measures and (for individuals who are likely to be infected anyway) ensuring that the infection happens under relatively less dangerous conditions. Some respond that CVI would unethical. Here, I argue that, while CVI may or may not be ill-advised for empirical reasons, there are no in-principle ethical objections to it (i.e., if CVI would work as well as its proponents think, it would be ethical to implement it). I present three arguments for this conclusion. The first is an argument from informed consent: informed consent to relevantly similar medical procedures renders performing these procedures permissible, so informed consent to CVI would render it permissible. The second is an argument from reasonable beneficence: it draws on recent work by Caspar Hare on relevantly similar choices to argue that CVI is permissible. The third is an argument from precedent: smallpox variolation was permissible, and CVI is relevantly similar to that, so CVI is permissible.


Asunto(s)
/prevención & control , Análisis Ético , Inmunización/ética , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Beneficencia , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/métodos , Humanos
5.
Emerg Med Clin North Am ; 39(1): 217-225, 2021 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33218659

RESUMEN

The emergency department is where the patient and potential ethical challenges are first encountered. Patients with acute neurologic illness introduce a unique set of dilemmas related to the pressure for ultra-early prognosis in the wake of rapidly advancing treatments. Many with neurologic injury are unable to provide autonomous consent, further complicating the picture, potentially asking uncertain surrogates to make quick decisions that may result in significant disability. The emergency department physician must take these ethical quandaries into account to provide standard of care treatment.


Asunto(s)
Lesiones Traumáticas del Encéfalo/terapia , Cuidado Terminal/ética , Manejo de la Vía Aérea/ética , Manejo de la Vía Aérea/métodos , Beneficencia , Muerte Encefálica/diagnóstico , Lesiones Traumáticas del Encéfalo/diagnóstico , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/ética , Procedimientos Endovasculares/ética , Ética Médica , Humanos , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Pronóstico , Accidente Cerebrovascular/terapia , Obtención de Tejidos y Órganos/ética
6.
Vaccine ; 39(4): 633-640, 2021 01 22.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33341309

RESUMEN

This report of the WHO Working Group for Guidance on Human Challenge Studies in COVID-19 outlines ethical standards for COVID-19 challenge studies. It includes eight Key Criteria related to scientific justification, risk-benefit assessment, consultation and engagement, co-ordination of research, site selection, participant selection, expert review, and informed consent. The document aims to provide comprehensive guidance to scientists, research ethics committees, funders, policymakers, and regulators in deliberations regarding SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies by outlining criteria that would need to be satisfied in order for such studies to be ethically acceptable.


Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica/ética , /prevención & control , Experimentación Humana/ética , Consentimiento Informado/ética , /patogenicidad , Antivirales/administración & dosificación , /inmunología , Comités de Ética en Investigación/organización & administración , Voluntarios Sanos , Experimentación Humana/legislación & jurisprudencia , Humanos , Selección de Paciente/ética , Vacunación/ética , Organización Mundial de la Salud
9.
Trials ; 21(1): 875, 2020 Oct 22.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33092632

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to demonstrate that COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) prevents progression to severe pneumonia in elderly COVID-19 pneumonia patients with chronic comorbidities. Secondary objectives are to demonstrate that CCP decreases the viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs and increases the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titre in recipients. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a randomized, open-label, parallel group, phase II/III study with a superiority framework. The trial starts with a screening phase II designed with two-tailed alpha=0.2. In case of positive results, the trial will proceed in a formally comparative phase III (alpha=0.05). PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 who are at risk according to CDC definition are eligible. Inclusion criteria are all the following: age ≥ 65; pneumonia at CT scan; PaO2/FiO2 ≥300 mmHg; presence of one or more comorbidities; signed informed consent. Exclusion criteria are one of the following: age < 65; PaO2/FiO2 < 300 mmHg; pending cardiopulmonary arrest; refusal to blood product transfusions; severe IgA deficiency; any life-threatening comorbidity or any other medical condition which, in the opinion of the investigator, makes the patient unsuitable for inclusion. The trial is being conducted at three reference COVID-19 centres in the middle of Italy. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma (CCP) in addition to standard therapy. Patients receive three doses (200 ml/day on 3 consecutive days) of ABO matched CCP. Comparator: Standard therapy MAIN OUTCOMES: A. Primary outcome for Phase II: Proportion of patients without progression in severity of pulmonary disease, defined as worsening of 2 points in the ordinal scale of WHO by day 14. B. Primary outcome for Phase III: Proportion of patients without progression in severity of pulmonary disease, defined as worsening of 2 points in the ordinal scale of WHO by day 14. Secondary outcomes for Phase III: Decreased viral load on nasopharyngeal swab at days 6, 9 and 14; Decreased viremia at days 6 and 9; Increased antibody titer against SARS-CoV2 at days 30 and 60; Proportion of patients with negative of SARS-CoV2 nasopharyngeal swab at day 30; Length of hospital stay; Mortality rate at day 28; Total plasma related adverse event (day 60); Total non-plasma related adverse events (day 60); Severe adverse events (SAE) (day 60). RANDOMISATION: Treatment allocation is randomized with a ratio 1:1 in both phase II and phase III. Randomization sequences will be generated at Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli IRCCS through the RedCap web application. Randomized stratification is performed according to age (under/over 80 years), and sex. BLINDING (MASKING): None, this is an open-label trial. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): Phase II: 114 patients (57 per arm). Phase III: 182 patients (91 per arm) TRIAL STATUS: The trial recruitment started on May 27, 2020. The anticipated date of recruitment completion is April 30, 2021. The protocol version is 2 (May 10, 2020). TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (May 5, 2020). The Identifier number is NCT04374526 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.


Asunto(s)
Betacoronavirus/genética , Transfusión Sanguínea/métodos , Infecciones por Coronavirus/terapia , Neumonía Viral/terapia , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Betacoronavirus/inmunología , Comorbilidad , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Infecciones por Coronavirus/virología , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Femenino , Humanos , Inmunización Pasiva/efectos adversos , Inmunización Pasiva/métodos , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Italia/epidemiología , Masculino , Mortalidad/tendencias , Pandemias , Neumonía/diagnóstico por imagen , Neumonía/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Neumonía Viral/virología , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X/métodos , Carga Viral/inmunología , Carga Viral/estadística & datos numéricos
10.
Trials ; 21(1): 853, 2020 Oct 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33059771

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of two doses of the adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac in symptomatic individuals, with virological confirmation of COVID-19, two weeks after the completion of the two-dose vaccination regimen, aged 18 years or older who work as health professionals providing care to patients with possible or confirmed COVID-19. To describe the occurrence of adverse reactions associated with the administration of each of two doses of the adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac up to one week after vaccination in Adults (18-59 years of age) and Elderly (60 years of age or more). TRIAL DESIGN: This is a Phase III, randomized, multicenter, endpoint driven, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of the adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac. The adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac (product under investigation) will be compared to placebo. Voluntary participants will be randomized to receive two intramuscular doses of the investigational product or the placebo, in a 1: 1 ratio, stratified by age group (18 to 59 years and 60 years or more) and will be monitored for one year by active surveillance of COVID-19. Two databases will be established according to the age groups: one for adults (18-59 years) and one for the elderly (60 years of age or older). The threshold to consider the vaccine efficacious will be to reach a protection level of at least 50%, as proposed by the World Health Organization and the FDA. Success in this criterion will be defined by sequential monitoring with adjustment of the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval above 30% for the primary efficacy endpoint. PARTICIPANTS: Healthy participants and / or participants with clinically controlled disease, of both genders, 18 years of age or older, working as health professionals performing care in units specialized in direct contact with people with possible or confirmed cases of COVID-19. Participation of pregnant women and those who are breastfeeding, as well as those intending to become pregnant within three months after vaccination will not be allowed. Participants will only be included after signing the voluntary Informed Consent Form and ensuring they undergo screening evaluation and conform to all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All the clinical sites are located in Brazil. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Experimental intervention: The vaccine was manufactured by Sinovac Life Sciences (Beijing, China) and contains 3 µg/0.5 mL (equivalent to 600 SU per dose) of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus, and aluminium hydroxide as adjuvant. Control comparator: The placebo contains aluminium hydroxide in a 0.5 mL solution The schedule of both, experimental intervention and placebo is two 0.5 mL doses IM (deltoid) with a two week interval. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary efficacy endpoint is the incidence of symptomatic cases of virologically confirmed COVID-19 two weeks after the second vaccination. The virological diagnosis will be confirmed by detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid in a clinical sample. The primary safety endpoint is the frequency of solicited and unsolicited local and systemic adverse reactions during the period of one week after vaccination according to age group in adult (18-59 years old) and elder (60 years of age or older) subjects. Adverse reactions are defined as adverse events that have a reasonable causal relationship to vaccination. RANDOMISATION: There will be two randomization lists, one for each age group, based on the investigational products to be administered, i.e., vaccine or placebo at a 1: 1 ratio. Each randomization list will be made to include up to 11,800 (18-59 year-old) adults, and 1,260 elderly (60 y-o and older) participants, the maximum number of participants needed per age group. An electronic central randomization system will be used to designate the investigational product that each participant must receive. BLINDING (MASKING): This trial is designed as a double-blind study to avoid introducing bias in the evaluation of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. The clinical care team, the professionals responsible for the vaccination and the participants will not know which investigational product will be administered. Only pharmacists or nurses in the study who are responsible for the randomization, separation and blinding of the investigational product will have access to unblinded information. The sponsor's operational team will also remain blind. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): The total number of participants needed to evaluate efficacy, 13,060 participants, satisfies the needed sample size calculated to evaluate safety. Therefore, the total number obtained for efficacy will be the number retained for the study. Up to 13,060 participants are expected to enter the study, with up to 11,800 participants aged 18 to 59 years and 1,260 elderly participants aged 60 and over. Half of the participants of each group will receive the experimental vaccine and half of them will receive the placebo. The recruitment of participants may be modified as recommended by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee at time of the interim unblinded analysis or blind assessment of the COVID-19 attack rate during the study. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 2.0 - 24-Aug-2020. Recruitment started on July 21st, 2020. The recruitment is expected to conclude in October 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0445659 . Registry on 2 July 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.


Asunto(s)
Betacoronavirus/genética , Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Pandemias/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/prevención & control , Vacunación/métodos , Vacunas/uso terapéutico , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Betacoronavirus/inmunología , Brasil/epidemiología , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Infecciones por Coronavirus/inmunología , Infecciones por Coronavirus/virología , Manejo de Datos , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Personal de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Incidencia , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Inyecciones Intramusculares , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Placebos/administración & dosificación , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Neumonía Viral/inmunología , Neumonía Viral/virología , Seguridad , Terapias en Investigación/métodos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Vacunas/administración & dosificación , Vacunas/efectos adversos , Adulto Joven
11.
Rev Med Suisse ; 16(708): 1790-1795, 2020 Sep 30.
Artículo en Francés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32997448

RESUMEN

Medical care of adults with disabilities, especially those with intellectual disabilities, can be ethically difficult. Several questions arise frequently. Can we administer a life-saving treatment that could impact negatively the patient's quality of life when the patient isn't able to give consent? During this Covid-19 period, can the use of chemical or physical restraints be considered as mistreatment, whereas the aim is to protect others? These are situations where the ethical question holds a central role. Although each clinical situation is unique, this article highlights, through four clinical cases, the ethical principles that should guide physicians in their decision-making process.


Asunto(s)
Toma de Decisiones Clínicas/ética , Infecciones por Coronavirus/psicología , Infecciones por Coronavirus/terapia , Personas con Discapacidad , Discapacidad Intelectual , Neumonía Viral/psicología , Neumonía Viral/terapia , Calidad de Vida , Adulto , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Humanos , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Restricción Física/ética
13.
S Afr Med J ; 110(7): 629-634, 2020 05 26.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32880337

RESUMEN

Pandemics challenge clinicians and scientists in many ways, especially when the virus is novel and disease expression becomes variable or unpredictable. Under such circumstances, research becomes critical to inform clinical care and protect future patients. Given that severely ill patients admitted to intensive care units are at high risk of mortality, establishing the cause of death at a histopathological level could prove invaluable in contributing to the understanding of COVID-19. Postmortem examination including autopsies would be optimal. However, in the context of high contagion and limited personal protective equipment, full autopsies are not being conducted in South Africa (SA). A compromise would require tissue biopsies and samples to be taken immediately after death to obtain diagnostic information, which could potentially guide care of future patients, or generate hypotheses for finding needed solutions. In the absence of an advance written directive (including a will or medical record) providing consent for postmortem research, proxy consent is the next best option. However, obtaining consent from distraught family members, under circumstances of legally mandated lockdown when strict infection control measures limit visitors in hospitals, is challenging. Their extreme vulnerability and emotional distress make full understanding of the rationale and consent process difficult either before or upon death of a family member. While it is morally distressing to convey a message of death telephonically, it is inhumane to request consent for urgent research in the same conversation. Careful balancing of the principles of autonomy, non-maleficence and justice becomes an ethical imperative. Under such circumstances, a waiver of consent, preferably followed by deferred proxy consent, granted by a research ethics committee in keeping with national ethics guidance and legislation, would fulfil the basic premise of care and research: first do no harm. This article examines the SA research ethics framework, guidance and legislation to justify support for a waiver of consent followed by deferred proxy consent, when possible, in urgent research after death to inform current and future care to contain the pandemic in the public interest.


Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Cuidados Críticos/ética , Enfermedad Crítica/terapia , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Pandemias/estadística & datos numéricos , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Causas de Muerte , Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Cuidados Críticos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Enfermedad Crítica/mortalidad , Países en Desarrollo , Femenino , Humanos , Control de Infecciones/organización & administración , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/ética , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/estadística & datos numéricos , Masculino , Evaluación de Necesidades , Pandemias/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/prevención & control , Proyectos de Investigación , Medición de Riesgo , Sudáfrica , Poblaciones Vulnerables/estadística & datos numéricos
14.
S Afr Med J ; 110(7): 635-639, 2020 06 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32880338

RESUMEN

Research is imperative in addressing the COVID-19 epidemic, both in the short and long term. Informed consent is a key pillar of research and should be central to the conduct of COVID-19 research. Yet a range of factors, including physical distancing requirements, risk of exposure and infection to research staff, and multiple pressures on the healthcare environment, have added layers of challenges to the consent process in COVID-19 patients. Internationally, the recognition that consent for COVID-19 research may be imperfect has led to a range of suggestions to ensure that research remains ethical. Drawing on these guidelines, we propose a consent process for COVID-19 research in the South African context that combines individual consent with delayed and proxy consent for individuals who may be temporarily incapacitated, combined with key principles that should be considered in the design of a consent process for COVID-19 research.


Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Bases de Datos Factuales/ética , Guías como Asunto , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Pandemias/estadística & datos numéricos , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/normas , Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Países en Desarrollo , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Pandemias/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/prevención & control , Proyectos de Investigación , Sudáfrica
17.
PLoS One ; 15(8): e0235618, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32756563

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: This is a multi-method, in-depth, three part qualitative study exploring the regulation and practice of secondary research with tissue and data in a high-income country. We explore and compare the perspectives of researchers, research ethics committees (RECs) and other relevant professionals (e.g. pathologists and clinicians). We focus on points of contention because they demonstrate misalignment between the expectations, values and assumptions of these stakeholders. METHODS: This is a multi-method study using observational research, focus groups and interviews with 42 participants (conducted 2016-2017) and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Results are arranged under the following themes: consent; balancing the social value of the research with consent requirements; and harm. Our findings demonstrate different perspectives on the review process, styles of ethical reasoning and issues of concern. First, researchers and RECs disagreed about whether the cost of re-consenting patients satisfied the criterion of impracticability for consent waivers. Second, most researchers were skeptical that secondary research with already collected tissue and data could harm patients. Researchers often pointed to the harm arising from a failure to use existing material for research. RECs were concerned about the potential for secondary research to stigmatize communities. Third, researchers adopted a more consequentialist approach to decision-making, including some willingness to trade off the benefit of the research against the cost of getting consent; whereas RECs were more deontological and typically considered research benefit only after it had been established that re-consent was impractical. CONCLUSION: This research highlights ways in which RECs and researchers may be talking past each other, resulting in confusion and frustration. These finding provide a platform for realignment of the expectations of RECs and researchers, which could contribute to making research ethics review more effective.


Asunto(s)
Comités de Ética en Investigación , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Comités de Ética en Investigación/ética , Ética en Investigación , Grupos Focales , Humanos , Investigación Cualitativa , Proyectos de Investigación , Investigadores/ética , Bancos de Tejidos/ética
18.
PLoS One ; 15(8): e0237875, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32853218

RESUMEN

While emerging digital health technologies offer researchers new avenues to collect real-time data, little is known about current ethical dimensions, considerations, and challenges that are associated with conducting digital data collection in research with minors. As such, this paper reports the findings of a scoping review which explored existing literature to canvass current ethical issues that arise when using digital data collection in research with minors. Scholarly literature was searched using electronic academic databases for articles that provided explicit ethical analysis or presented empirical research that directly addressed ethical issues related to digital data collection used in research with minors. After screening 1,156 titles and abstracts, and reviewing 73 full-text articles, 20 articles were included in this review. Themes which emerged across the reviewed literature included: consent, data handling, minors' data rights, observing behaviors that may result in risk of harm to participants or others, private versus public conceptualizations of data generated through social media, and gatekeeping. Our findings indicate a degree of uncertainty which invariably exists with regards to the ethics of research that involves minors and digital technology. The reviewed literature suggests that this uncertainty can often lead to the preclusion of minors from otherwise important lines of research inquiry. While uncertainty warrants ethical consideration, increased ethical scrutiny and restricting the conduct of such research raises its own ethical challenges. We conclude by discussing and recommending the ethical merits of co-producing ethical practice between researchers and minors as a mechanism to proceed with such research while addressing concerns around uncertainty.


Asunto(s)
Recolección de Datos , Ética en Investigación , Menores , Conducta , Manejo de Datos , Humanos , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Publicaciones , Riesgo , Medios de Comunicación Sociales
20.
Rev. bioét. derecho ; (49): l191-210, jul. 2020.
Artículo en Español | IBECS | ID: ibc-192102

RESUMEN

En el presente trabajo se efectúa una aproximación general a los reparos éticos que la investigación neurocientífica plantea, especialmente respecto de sus usos extralimitados en el proceso penal. Así pues, con el objetivo de regular un uso adecuado, respetuoso con los principios generalmente aceptados en el ámbito biomédico, se desarrolla una propuesta de regulación ética de esta materia que preceda a su uso probatorio en el ámbito forense


The present paper makes a general approach to the ethical concerns that neuroscientific research suggests, especially evaluating its overreaching uses in the criminal process. Therefore, with the objective of regulating an adequate use, a proposal of ethical regulation of this matter is made, which should precede its probative use in the forensic field


En el present treball es fa una aproximació general a les objeccions ètiques que la investigació neurocientífica planteja, especialment respecte al seus usos extralimitats en el procés penal. Així doncs, amb l'objectiu de regular un ús adequat, respectuós amb els principis generalment acceptats en l'àmbit biomèdic, es desenvolupa una proposta de regulació ètica d'aquesta matèria que precedeixi al seu ús probatori en l'àmbit forense


Asunto(s)
Humanos , Neuroimagen/ética , Defensa por Insania , Jurisprudencia , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Neurociencias/ética , Neurociencias/instrumentación , Personeidad , Responsabilidad Social
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...