...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Research Ethics >How idiocultures and warrants operate independently in New Zealand health ethics review boards:
【24h】

How idiocultures and warrants operate independently in New Zealand health ethics review boards:

机译：新西兰卫生伦理审查委员会中的独特文化和手令如何独立运作：

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Laura Stark’s ethnography of IRB decision-making unearthed two concerns: first, even though the committees were governed by ethical principles, the committees generated their own precedents for future decision-making; second, Stark witnessed unequal power relations within committee decision-making as a member’s expertise was accepted as a ‘warrant’. This article examines how these warrants are practiced within the decision-making process of New Zealand’s four Health and Disability Ethics Committees (HDECs or IRBs). More specifically, this article concerns these warrants during a committee’s decision to consult with indigenous communities, a decision for which there exist no guidelines. The article ends by discussing ethical issues when observing in public places.
机译：劳拉·史塔克（Laura Stark）关于IRB决策的民族志揭示了两个问题：第一，尽管委员会受道德原则支配，但委员会为未来的决策树立了自己的先例。其次，斯塔克目睹了委员会决策中权力关系的不平等，因为成员的专业知识被认为是“保证书”。本文研究了在新西兰四个健康与残疾道德委员会（HDECs或IRB）的决策过程中如何执行这些手令。更具体地说，本文在委员会与土著社区进行磋商的决定中涉及这些逮捕令，而该决定尚无指导方针。本文最后讨论在公共场所进行观察时的道德问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号