Deliberation and decisions in the IRB process
Institutional review boards (IRBs) regularly vote to resolve conflict. This article argues that voting minimizes protections for human subjects and violates moral order. Rather than vote, IRBs should be mediating disputes, which respects the moral difference and integrity of IRB members.
Saved in:
Main Author: | Nancy Neveloff Dubler (Author) |
---|---|
Format: | Book |
Published: |
Social Medicine Publication Group,
2013-11-01T00:00:00Z.
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Connect to this object online. |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Similar Items
-
A New Ethical Challenge for Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)/Ethics Committees (ECs) in the Assessment of Pediatric Clinical Trials
by: Klaus Rose, et al.
Published: (2015) -
Nurses' moral deliberation in the child care process
by: Deisy Vital dos Santos, et al. -
Perceptions of health professionals about the quality of communication and deliberation with the patient and its impact on the health decision making process
by: Eduardo Osuna, et al.
Published: (2018) -
Applying the balanced scorecard to local public health performance measurement: deliberations and decisions
by: Kurji Karim, et al.
Published: (2009) -
Deliberation, Representation, Equity: Research Approaches, Tools and Algorithms for Participatory Processes
by: Danielson, Mats
Published: (2017)