Death Determination and Clinicians' Epistemic Authority.
作者信息
Rodríguez-Arias David, Molina-Pérez Alberto, Díaz-Cobacho Gonzalo
机构信息
Universidad de Granada.
出版信息
Am J Bioeth. 2020 Jun;20(6):44-47. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1754514.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Death Determination and Clinicians' Epistemic Authority.死亡判定与临床医生的认知权威。
Am J Bioeth. 2020 Jun;20(6):44-47. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1754514.
2
Accommodating Apnea Testing Not Death Determination Refusal.配合呼吸暂停测试而非拒绝死亡判定。
Am J Bioeth. 2020 Jun;20(6):47-49. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1754503.
3
Informed Consent Should Not Be Required for Apnea Testing and Arguing It Should Misses the Point.进行呼吸暂停测试不应要求获得知情同意，认为应该要求获得知情同意是没有抓住要点。
Am J Bioeth. 2020 Jun;20(6):25-27. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1754517.
4
The Case Against Solicitation of Consent for Apnea Testing.反对为呼吸暂停测试征求同意的理由。
Am J Bioeth. 2020 Jun;20(6):20-22. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1754512.
5
Requiring Consent for Brain-Death Testing: A Perilous Proposal.脑死亡检测需征得同意：一项危险的提议。
Am J Bioeth. 2020 Jun;20(6):28-30. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1754515.
6
Informed Consent for Apnea Testing: Meeting the Standard of Care.呼吸暂停测试的知情同意：符合医疗护理标准
Am J Bioeth. 2020 Jun;20(6):49-51. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1754520.
7
Apnea Testing is Medical Treatment Requiring Informed Consent.呼吸暂停测试是需要知情同意的医学治疗。
Am J Bioeth. 2020 Jun;20(6):22-24. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1754509.
8
The Apnea Test: Requiring Consent for a Test That is a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, Not Fit for Purpose, and Always Confounded?呼吸暂停测试：一项自我实现预言、不适用且总是混淆不清的测试，却需要获得同意？
Am J Bioeth. 2020 Jun;20(6):42-44. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1754504.
9
Restoring Trust and Requiring Consent in Death by Neurological Criteria.通过神经学标准恢复死亡判定中的信任并要求获得同意。
Am J Bioeth. 2020 Jun;20(6):33-35. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1754508.
10
Response to Open Peer Commentaries "Rethinking the Ethical, Legal, and Clinical Foundations of Informed Consent and Shared Decision-Making for Brain Death Determination".对开放同行评论《重新思考脑死亡判定中知情同意和共同决策的伦理、法律及临床基础》的回应
Am J Bioeth. 2020 Jun;20(6):W1-W5. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1762796.
引用本文的文献
1
Death pluralism: a proposal.死亡多元论：一种建议。
Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2023 Aug 2;18(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s13010-023-00139-3.
2
Inconsistency between the Circulatory and the Brain Criteria of Death in the Uniform Determination of Death Act.《统一死亡判定法案》中循环系统与脑死亡判定标准之间的矛盾。
J Med Philos. 2023 Sep 14;48(5):422-433. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhad029.
3
Attitudes of Polish Doctors towards Brain Death.波兰医生对脑死亡的态度。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Oct 22;19(21):13729. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192113729.
Zotero 插件