Bioethics in LawSpringer Science & Business Media, 09/11/2007 - 186 páginas The idea for Bioethics in Law began more than a decade ago, while I was studying social science and law. I was parti- larly interested in the collaborations that comprised social s- ence in law. Economic and social data in the pioneering Brandeis brief had been used to defend an early 20th-century labor law; surveys of consumer confusion had helped resolve trademark - fringement cases; psychologists’ predictions of future violence had informed capital sentencing decisions. Additionally, Kenneth Clark’s “doll studies,” cited by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, had helped change the course of American 1 history. During that time, however, I was most intensely interested in bioethics, a relatively young field whose relationships to law had not been well analyzed. I wondered whether there could or should be a bioethics in law, because bioethics, unlike the social sciences, was not only in its infancy, but also had distinctly normative features, which might not mesh easily with law’s own normativity. |
Índice
1 | |
13 | |
Health Care Ethics Committee Determinations | 41 |
Institutional Review Board Determinations | 57 |
Bioethics Commission Reports | 73 |
Bioethics Scholarship | 99 |
General Acceptance | 121 |
Experience | 155 |
Outras edições - Ver tudo
Palavras e frases frequentes
acceptance adjudicative fact Appellant applied approach assess attorney authority Baby bioethicist bioethics testimony briefs Chapter claim clinical codes Commission committee communications conduct confidentiality consider consultation court Deciding decision Defendants describe develop distinctively effect ethics evidence example expert expert testimony fact failed federal harm HEC determinations Hospital Human Human Subjects identifying important informed consent institutional interest interpretation involved issue John Judge judgment judicial knowledge legislative life-sustaining limits litigation material medical ethics methods moral norms noted opinion parties patient peer review person physicians Plaintiffs potential practice presented Press principles procedures Protection question reasoning records referred regarding regulations relevant reliability rely result Rule scholar skill social standards status steps strands subjects subpoena testified tion treat treatment trial United University violated Witness York