Bibliographies par sujet

Les livres et les articles cités ci-dessous sont tous disponibles au centre de documentation

Multiculturalité en médecine

Articles

  • HUDELSON Patricia. Que peut apporter l'anthropologie médicale à la pratique de la médecine ? , Santé Conjuguée, octobre 2008, No. 46, p. 35-39.

 

Protection des sujets humains dans le cadre de la recherche

Articles

  • LIDZ Charles W., PhD, APPELBAUM Paul S., MD, ARNOLD Robert, MD, CANDILIS Philip, MD, GARDNER William, PhD, MYERS Suzanne, and SIMON Lorna, MA. How Closely Do Institutional Review Boards Follow the Common Rule ?, Academic Medicine, July 2012, Vol. 87, No. 7, p. 1-6.

Purpose

To determine how closely institutional review board (IRB) discussions reflect the ethical criteria specified in the Common Rule federal regulations.

Method

Between November 2006 and July 2009, the authors observed, audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded protocol reviews from 20 IRB meetings at 10 leading academic medical centers. They also reviewed each of the applications discussed to identify the Common Rule criteria—(1) risk minimization, (2) risk/benefit comparison, (3) equitable subject selection, (4) informed consent, (5) data monitoring to ensure safety, (6) privacy protection and confidentiality, and (7) protection of vulnerable subjects—that were both relevant to the study and not adequately addressed in the application. They then determined if the IRB addressed each of the relevant and not-discussed Common Rule criteria in their discussions.

Results

IRBs made no mention of many of the Common Rule criteria that required their discussion—In 17/82 (21%) reviews, they failed to address risk minimization; in 52/91 (57%), risk/benefit comparison; in 31/52 (60%), equitable subject selection; in 32/59 (54%), data monitoring; in 13/52 (25%), privacy and confidentiality; and in 7/55 (13%), protection of vulnerable populations. However, they discussed informed consent in 102/104 (98%) reviews and raised questions about, or requested changes about, informed consent for 92/104 (88%) protocols.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that essential elements of human subjects protection are not implemented uniformly across IRBs. Although not directly addressing this issue, the current proposed changes to the Common Rule offer an opportunity to improve, in general, the effectiveness of IRBs to protect human subjects.

 

Capabilités

Articles

  • BOTBOL-BAUM Mylène. Sen and Nussbaum's capability approach and the transfer of biotechnology in Africa: conditions of transitive justice, African Journal of Medicine, janvier 2007.
  • BASUA BABINTU LEYKA Mukandu, BOTBOL-BAUM Mylène, CLOSON Marie-Christine. Renforcer les capabilités des enfants de la rue. Une manière de lutter durablement contre le sida en république démocratique du congo. Revue Tiers Monde, 2011, n°207, p. 189-206.
  • RUTA Danny, CAMFIELD Laura, DONALDSON Cam. Sen and the art of quality of life maintenance: Towards a general theory of quality of life and its causation. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 2007, 36, p. 397–423.
  • SECKINELGIN Hakan. The global governance of success in HIV/AIDS policy: Emergency action, everyday lives and Sen’s capabilities. Health & Place, 2012, 18, p.453–460.
  • MADDOX Brian. What Good is Literacy? Insights and Implications of the Capabilities Approach. Journal of Human Development, July 2008, Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 185-206.
  • GANDJOUR Afschin. Mutual dependency between capabilities and functionings in Amartya Sen’s capability approach. Soc Choice Welfare,  2008, 31, p. 345–350.
  • COURTWRIGHT Andrew. Health disparities and autonomy. Bioethics, 2008, Volume 22, Number 8, p. 431–439.
  • PRAH RUGER Jennifer. Health Capability: Conceptualization and Operationalization. American Journal of Public Health, January 2010, Vol 100, No. 1.
  • VARELA CARRASCO Alejandra, FERRER Robert L. Capability and Clinical Success. Annals of Family Medicine, 2010, 8, p. 454-460.
  • ANAND P. Capabilities and health. Journal of Medical Ethics, 2005, 31, p. 299-303.
  • FRASER Sarah W. , GREENHALGH Trisha. Coping with complexity: educating for capability. British Medical Journal, 2001, Vol. 323, p. 799-803
  • SEN Amartya. Why health equity?. Health Economics, 2002, 11, p. 659–666.

 

Eugénisme

Livres

  • CASSIERS Léon. Ni ange ni bête : Essai sur l'éthique de l'homme ordinaire. Paris : Cerf, 2010.
  • MISSA Jean-Noël. De l’eugénisme d’état à l’eugénisme privé. In nouvelle génétique médicale. Bruxelles : ULB, 1998.
  • ANDORNO Roberto. La bioéthique et la dignité de la personne. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, 1997.
  • BACHELARD-JOBARD Catherine. L’eugénisme, la science et le droit. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, 2001
  • MISSA Jean-Noël, SUSANNE Charles (Eds). De l’eugénisme d’Etat à l’eugénisme privé. Bruxelles : De Boeck, 1999
  • TILMANS-CABIAUX Chantal, DUCHENE Joseph. Les tests génétiques aujourd’hui. Namur : Presses Universitaires de Namur, 2002.
  • TESTART Jacques. La procréation médicalisée. Paris : Flammarion, 1993
  • SIMONNOT Anne-Laure. Hygiénisme et eugénisme au XXe siècle à travers la psychiatrie française. Paris : Seli Arslan, 1999
  • ATLAN Henri et BOTBOL-BAUM Mylène. Des embryons et des hommes. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, 2007.

Articles

  • RESNIK David B. Of maize and men: reproductive control and the threat to genetic diversity. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 2000, Vol. 25, No. 4, p. 451–467
  • DAHLGREN CHILDRESS Kelly. Genetics, disability and ethics: could applied technologies lead to a new eugenics ?. The journal of Women and Religion, 2003, Vol.19/20, p.157-178
  • SAVULESCU Julian. New breeds of humans: the moral obligation to enhance. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 2004, Vol.10. Supp.1, p.36-39
  • SAVULESCU Julian, HEMSLEY Melanie, NEWSON Ainsley and FODDY Benett. Behavioural genetics: why eugenics selection is preferable to enhancement. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 2006, Vol.23, No. 2, p.157-171
  • BUCHANAN Allen. Institutions, beliefs and ethics: eugenics as a case study. The Journal of Political Philosophy, Volume 15, Number 1, 2007, p. 22–45
  • McWHORTER Ladelle. Governmentality, biopower, and the debate over genetic enhancement. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 2009, 34, p. 409 – 437.
  • KOCH Tom. Enhancing who ? Enhancing what ? Ethics, bioethics, and transhumanism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 2010, 35, p. 685–699.
  • SPARROW Robert. A not-so-new eugenics. Hastings Center Report, 2011, Vol.41, No. 1, p. 32-42.
  • RUSSEL Camisha. The limit of liberal choice: racial selection and reprogenetics. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 2010, Volume 48, Spindel Supplement, p.97-108.
  • MALLIA Pierre et TEN HAVE Henk. Eugenics and the new genetics. Journal International de Bioéthique, 2003, Vol. 14, No.3, p. 15-32.
  • HENRICH Daniel C. Human nature and autonomy: Jürgen Haberman's critique of liberal eugenics. Ethical Perspectives, 2011, Vol.18, No.2, p. 249-268.
     

    •  

 

| 7/12/2012 |