dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.contributorFundação de Ensino e Pesquisa em Ciências da Saúde-FEPECS
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-01T00:57:51Z
dc.date.accessioned2022-12-20T03:35:56Z
dc.date.available2022-05-01T00:57:51Z
dc.date.available2022-12-20T03:35:56Z
dc.date.created2022-05-01T00:57:51Z
dc.date.issued2010-01-01
dc.identifierPhilosophy and Medicine, v. 106, p. 333-341.
dc.identifier2215-0080
dc.identifier0376-7418
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/233053
dc.identifier10.1007/978-1-4020-9350-0_26
dc.identifier2-s2.0-85094976400
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/5413152
dc.description.abstractHuman experimentation cannot be analyzed in isolation because many forces shape social interaction - man’s quest for knowledge and mastery, his willingness to risk human life, and his readiness to delegate authority and to rely on professional judgment (Katz 1972). It was man’s capacity for seeking justice that made ethics committees possible, while at the same time it was man’s capacity for deceiving people that made ethics committees necessary (Ramsey 1982, p. 533). As Raul Hilberg wrote in The Destruction of the European Jews, “If the world was so shocked at what it discovered to be the extremes to which experimental medicine would go, it has yet to condemn the method or find the means to control it” (Hilberg 2003). From our point of view, the right choice is to control experimentation on human beings.
dc.languageeng
dc.relationPhilosophy and Medicine
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectBrazilian Institute
dc.subjectCommittee Member
dc.subjectIndigenous People
dc.subjectInstitutional Research Ethic Committee
dc.subjectSurrogate Decision Maker
dc.titleEthics of Research Involving Human Subjects: The Brazilian Experience
dc.typeCapítulos de libros


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución