<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:extra="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/feeds/latestarticles/journal?journal=bmcmedethics&amp;quantity=&amp;format=rss&amp;version=">
        <title>BMC Medical Ethics - Latest Articles</title>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmedethics/</link>
        <description>The latest research articles published by BMC Medical Ethics</description>
        <dc:date>2009-07-06T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/9" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/8" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/7" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/6" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/5" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/4" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/3" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/2" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/1" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/9/19" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
        <extra:info rdf:parseType="Literal">
            <html:div style="font:14px Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
                <html:span style="font-weight:bold">
                    This is an RSS newsfeed from BioMed Central
                </html:span>
                <html:br />
                <html:span style="font-size: 12px;">
                    It is intended to be used with an RSS reader. For more information about RSS newsfeeds from BioMed Central, visit
                    <html:br />
                    <html:a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/" style="color:#3333CC; font-size:12px;">
                        http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/
                    </html:a>
                    <html:br />
                </html:span>
            </html:div>
        </extra:info>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/9">
        <title>Disagreements with implications: Diverging discourses on the ethics of non-medical use of methylphenidate for performance enhancement</title>
        <description>Background:
There is substantial evidence that methylphenidate (MPH; Ritalin), is being used by healthy university students for non-medical motives such as the improvement of concentration, alertness, and academic performance. The scope and potential consequences of the non-medical use of MPH upon healthcare and society bring about many points of view.
Methods:
To gain insight into key ethical and social issues on the non-medical use of MPH, we examined discourses in the print media, bioethics literature, and public health literature.
Results:
Our study identified three diverging paradigms with varying perspectives on the nature of performance enhancement. The beneficial effects of MPH on normal cognition were generally portrayed enthusiastically in the print media and bioethics discourses but supported by scant information on associated risks. Overall, we found a variety of perspectives regarding ethical, legal and social issues related to the non-medical use of MPH for performance enhancement and its impact upon social practices and institutions. The exception to this was public health discourse which took a strong stance against the non-medical use of MPH typically viewed as a form of prescription abuse or misuse. Wide-ranging recommendations for prevention of further non-medical use of MPH included legislation and increased public education.
Conclusions:
Some positive portrayals of the non-medical use of MPH for performance enhancement in the print media and bioethics discourses could entice further uses. Medicine and society need to prepare for more prevalent non-medical uses of neuropharmaceuticals by fostering better informed public debates.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/9</link>
                <dc:creator>Cynthia Forlini</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Eric Racine</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Ethics 2009, 10:9</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-07-06T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6939-10-9</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Ethics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6939</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>9</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-07-06T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/8">
        <title>Capacity mapping of national ethics committees in the Eastern Mediterranean Region </title>
        <description>Background:
Ethics issues in the areas of science, technology and medicine have emerged during the last few decades.  Many countries have responded by establishing ethics committees at the national level.  Identification of National Ethics Committees (NECs) in the Eastern Mediterranean (EM) region and the extent of their functions and capacity would be helpful in developing capacity building programs that address the needs of these committees.  Accordingly, we conducted a survey to determine the characteristics of existing NECs in the EM region.
Methods:
We developed a questionnaire to collect information on different aspects of NECs.  The questionnaire was sent to the WHO country office in each of the 22 Member States in the EM region.  We used descriptive statistics to analyze the data.
Results:
We obtained responses from 77% (17/22) of the EM countries; 88% (15/17) of the countries stated they had NECs.  Of these NECs, 40% (6/15) were involved in the ethics of science and technology, 73% (11/15) in medical ethics, and 93% (14/15) in medical research ethics; 10 NECs stated they reviewed research protocols. Of the respondent NECs, 25% (4/15) met at least on a monthly basis.  Regarding training, 21% of the members from all of the NECs had received formal training in ethics; 53% (8/15) of the NECs had none of their members with formal training in ethics. Regarding support, 33% (5/15) received financial support and 60% (9/15) had administrative support.
Conclusion:
While many countries in the EM region report the existence of NECs, many meet  infrequently, many have members without formal training in ethics, and many lack important financial and administrative resources.   Further efforts should be directed towards capacity building programs that include ethics training and provision of important infrastructure resources for these committees.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/8</link>
                <dc:creator>Alaa Abou-Zeid</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mohammad Afzal</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Henry Silverman</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Ethics 2009, 10:8</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-07-04T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6939-10-8</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Ethics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6939</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>8</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-07-04T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/7">
        <title>Expression of therapeutic misconception amongst Egyptians: a qualitative pilot study</title>
        <description>Background:
Studies have shown that research participants fail to appreciate the difference between research and medical care, labeling such phenomenon as a &quot;therapeutic misconception&quot; (TM). Since research activity involving human participants is increasing in the Middle East, qualitative research investigating aspects of TM is warranted. Our objective was to assess for the existence of therapeutic misconception amongst Egyptians.
Methods:
Study Tool: We developed a semi-structured interview guide to elicit the knowledge, attitudes, and perspectives of Egyptians regarding medical research.Setting: We recruited individuals from the outpatient settings (public and private) at Ain Shams University in Cairo, Egypt.Analysis: Interviews were taped, transcribed, and translated. We analyzed the content of the transcribed text to identify the presence of a TM, defined in one of two ways: TM1 = inaccurate beliefs about how individualized care can be compromised by the procedures in the research and TM2 = inaccurate appraisal of benefit obtained from the research study.
Results:
Our findings showed that a majority of participants (11/15) expressed inaccurate beliefs regarding the degree with which individualized care will be maintained in the research setting (TM1) and a smaller number of participants (5/15) manifested an unreasonable belief in the likelihood of benefits to be obtained from a research study (TM2). A total of 12 of the 15 participants were judged to have expressed a TM on either one of these bases.
Conclusion:
The presence of TM is not uncommon amongst Egyptian individuals. We recommend further qualitative studies investigating aspects of TM involving a larger sample size distinguished by different types of illnesses and socio-economic variables, as well as those who have and have not participated in clinical research.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/7</link>
                <dc:creator>Mayyada Wazaify</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Susan Khalil</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Henry Silverman</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Ethics 2009, 10:7</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-06-30T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6939-10-7</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Ethics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6939</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>7</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-06-30T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/6">
        <title>Technology assessment and resource allocation for predictive genetic testing:
A study of the perspectives of Canadian genetic health care providers

</title>
        <description>Background:
With a growing number of genetic tests becoming available to the health and consumer markets, genetic health care providers in Canada are faced with the challenge of developing robust decision rules or guidelines to allocate a finite number of public resources. The objective of this study was to gain Canadian genetic health providers&apos; perspectives on factors and criteria that influence and shape resource allocation decisions for publically funded predictive genetic testing in Canada.
Methods:
The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 senior lab directors and clinicians at publically funded Canadian predictive genetic testing facilities. Participants were drawn from British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Given the community sampled was identified as being relatively small and challenging to access, purposive sampling coupled with snowball sampling methodologies were utilized.
Results:
Surveyed lab directors and clinicians indicated that predictive genetic tests were funded provincially by one of two predominant funding models, but they themselves played a significant role in how these funds were allocated for specific tests and services. They also rated and identified several factors that influenced allocation decisions and patients&apos; decisions regarding testing. Lastly, participants provided recommendations regarding changes to existing allocation models and showed support for a national evaluation process for predictive testing.
Conclusions:
Our findings suggest that largely local and relatively ad hoc decision making processes are being made in relation to resource allocations for predictive genetic tests and that a more coordinated and, potentially, national approach to allocation decisions in this context may be appropriate.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/6</link>
                <dc:creator>Alethea Adair</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Robyn Hyde-Lay</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Edna Einsiedel</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Timothy Caulfield</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Ethics 2009, 10:6</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-06-18T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6939-10-6</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Ethics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6939</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>6</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-06-18T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/5">
        <title>Knowledge, attitudes and practices survey on organ donation among a selected adult population of Pakistan</title>
        <description>Background:
To determine the knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding organ donation in a selected adult population in Pakistan.
Methods:
Convenience sampling was used to generate a sample of 440; 408 interviews were successfully completed and used for analysis. Data collection was carried out via a face to face interview based on a pre-tested questionnaire in selected public areas of Karachi, Pakistan. Data was analyzed using SPSS v.15 and associations were tested using the Pearson&apos;s Chi square test. Multiple logistic regression was used to find independent predictors of knowledge status and motivation of organ donation.
Results:
Knowledge about organ donation was significantly associated with education (p = 0.000) and socioeconomic status (p = 0.038). 70/198 (35.3%) people expressed a high motivation to donate. Allowance of organ donation in religion was significantly associated with the motivation to donate (p = 0.000). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that higher level of education and higher socioeconomic status were significant (p &lt; 0.05) independent predictors of knowledge status of organ donation. For motivation, multiple logistic regression revealed that higher socioeconomic status, adequate knowledge score and belief that organ donation is allowed in religion were significant (p &lt; 0.05) independent predictors. Television emerged as the major source of information. Only 3.5% had themselves donated an organ; with only one person being an actual kidney donor.
Conclusion:
Better knowledge may ultimately translate into the act of donation. Effective measures should be taken to educate people with relevant information with the involvement of media, doctors and religious scholars.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/5</link>
                <dc:creator>Taimur Saleem</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sidra Ishaque</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Nida Habib</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Syedda Hussain</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Areeba Javed</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Aamir Khan</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Muhammad Ahmad</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mian Iftikhar</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Hamza Mughal</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Imtiaz Jehan</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Ethics 2009, 10:5</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-06-17T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6939-10-5</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Ethics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6939</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>5</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-06-17T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/4">
        <title>Research understanding, attitude and awareness towards biobanking: a survey among Italian twin participants to a genetic epidemiological study</title>
        <description>Background:
The Italian Twin Registry (ITR) has been carrying out several genetic-epidemiological studies. Collection and storage of biological material from study participants has recently increased in the light of biobanking development. Within this scenario, we aimed at investigating understanding, awareness and attitude towards blood/DNA donation of research participants. About these quite unknown dimensions more knowledge is needed from ethical and social perspectives.
Methods:
Cross-sectional mail survey to explore three dimensions: (i) understanding of aims and method of a specific study, (ii) attitude (three ideas for donation: &quot;moral duty&quot;, &quot;pragmatism&quot;, &quot;spontaneity&quot;) and (iii) awareness (i.e. the recall of having been asked to donate) towards blood/DNA donation for research, among all the Italian twins who had participated in Euroclot (n = 181), a large international genetic-epidemiological study. Multivariate models were applied to investigate the association of sex, age, education and modality of Euroclot recruitment (twins enrolled in the ITR and volunteers) with the targeted dimensions. Pair-wise twin concordance for the &quot;pragmatic&quot; attitude was estimated in monozygotic and dizygotic pairs.
Results:
Response rate was 56% (99 subjects); 75.8% understood the Euroclot method, only 33.3% correctly answered about the study aim. A significantly better understanding of aim and method was detected in &quot;volunteers&quot;. Graduated subjects were more likely to understand study aim. In the overall sample, the &quot;pragmatic&quot; attitude to blood donation reached 76.8%, and biobanking awareness 89.9%. The latter was significantly higher among women. Monozygotic twins were more concordant than dizygotic twins for the &quot;pragmatic&quot; attitude towards blood/DNA donation for research.
Conclusion:
Level of understanding of aims and methods of a specific research project seems to vary in relation to modalities of approaching research; most of the twins are well aware of having been asked to donate blood for biobanking activities, and seem to be motivated by a &quot;pragmatic&quot; attitude to blood/DNA donation. Genetic influences on this attitude were suggested. The framing of interests and concerns of healthy participants to genetic-epidemiological studies should be further pursued, since research, particularly for &quot;common diseases&quot;, is increasingly relying on population surveys and biobanking.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/4</link>
                <dc:creator>Virgilia Toccaceli</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Corrado Fagnani</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lorenza Nistico</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Cristina D'Ippolito</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lorenzo Giannantonio</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sonia Brescianini</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Maria Antonietta Stazi</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Ethics 2009, 10:4</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-06-16T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6939-10-4</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Ethics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6939</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>4</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-06-16T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/3">
        <title>Democracy: the forgotten challenge for bioethics in the developing countries</title>
        <description>Background:
Bioethics as a field related to the health system and health service delivery has grown in the second half of the 20th century, mainly in North America. This is attributed, the author argues, to mainly three kinds of development that took place in the developed countries at a pace different than the developing countries. They are namely: development of the health system; moral development; and political development.DiscussionThis article discusses the factors that impede the development of the field of bioethics from an academic activity to a living field that is known and practiced by the people in the developing countries. They are quite many; however, the emphasis here is on role of the political structure in the developing countries and how it negatively affects the development of bioethics. It presents an argument that if bioethics is to grow within the system of health service, it should be accompanied by a parallel changes in the political mindsets in these countries.SummaryFor bioethics to flourish in developing countries, it needs an atmosphere of freedom where people can practice free moral reasoning and have full potential to take their life decisions by themselves. Moreover, bioethics could be a tool for political change through the empowerment of people, especially the vulnerable.To achieve that, the article is proposing a practical framework for facilitating the development of the field of bioethics in the developing countries.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/3</link>
                <dc:creator>Ghaiath Hussein</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Ethics 2009, 10:3</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-05-22T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6939-10-3</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Ethics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6939</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-05-22T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/2">
        <title>Survey of doctors&apos; opinions of the legalisation of physician assisted suicide</title>
        <description>Background:
Assisted dying has wide support among the general population but there is evidence that those providing care for the dying may be less supportive. Senior doctors would be involved in implementing the proposed change in the law. We aimed to measure support for legalising physician assisted dying in a representative sample of senior doctors in England and Wales, and to assess any association between doctors&apos; characteristics and level of support for a change in the law.
Methods:
We conducted a postal survey of 1000 consultants and general practitioners randomly selected from a commercially available database. The main outcome of interest was level of agreement with any change in the law to allow physician assisted suicide.
Results:
The corrected participation rate was 50%. We analysed 372 questionnaires. Respondents&apos; views were divided: 39% were in favour of a change to the law to allow assisted suicide, 49% opposed a change and 12% neither agreed nor disagreed. Doctors who reported caring for the dying were less likely to support a change in the law. Religious belief was also associated with opposition. Gender, specialty and years in post had no significant effect.
Conclusion:
More senior doctors in England and Wales oppose any step towards the legalisation of assisted dying than support this. Doctors who care for the dying were more opposed. This has implications for the ease of implementation of recently proposed legislation.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/2</link>
                <dc:creator>William Lee</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Annabel Price</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lauren Rayner</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Matthew Hotopf</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Ethics 2009, 10:2</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-03-05T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6939-10-2</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Ethics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6939</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>2</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-03-05T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/1">
        <title>How do parents experience being asked to enter a child in a randomised controlled trial?</title>
        <description>Background:
As the number of randomised controlled trials of medicines for children increases, it becomes progressively more important to understand the experiences of parents who are asked to enrol their child in a trial. This paper presents a narrative review of research evidence on parents&apos; experiences of trial recruitment focussing on qualitative research, which allows them to articulate their views in their own words.DiscussionParents want to do their best for their children, and socially and legally their role is to care for and protect them yet the complexities of the medical and research context can challenge their fulfilment of this role. Parents are simultaneously responsible for their child and cherish this role yet they are dependent on others when their child becomes sick. They are keen to exercise responsibility for deciding to enter a child in a trial yet can be fearful of making the &apos;wrong&apos; decision. They make judgements about the threat of the child&apos;s condition as well as the risks of the trial yet their interpretations often differ from those of medical and research experts. Individual parents will experience these and other complexities to a greater or lesser degree depending on their personal experiences and values, the medical situation of their child and the nature of the trial. Interactions at the time of trial recruitment offer scope for negotiating these complexities if practitioners have the flexibility to tailor discussions to the needs and situation of individual parents. In this way, parents may be helped to retain a sense that they have acted as good parents to their child whatever decision they make.SummaryDiscussing randomised controlled trials and gaining and providing informed consent is challenging. The unique position of parents in giving proxy consent for their child adds to this challenge. Recognition of the complexities parents face in making decisions about trials suggests lines for future research on the conduct of trials, and ultimately, may help improve the experience of trial recruitment for all parties.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/10/1</link>
                <dc:creator>Valerie Shilling</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Bridget Young</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Ethics 2009, 10:1</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-02-16T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6939-10-1</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Ethics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6939</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-02-16T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/9/19">
        <title>Termination of pregnancy due to Thalassemia major, Hemophilia, and Down&apos;s Syndrome: the views of Iranian physicians  </title>
        <description>Background:
Genetic disorders due to kindred marriages are common medical conditions in Iran; however, the legal aspects of abortion remain controversial. This study was undertaken to determine physicians&apos; opinions regarding the termination of pregnancy for three genetic diseases: thalassemia major, hemophilia, and Down&apos;s syndrome.
Methods:
A questionnaire was administered to selected physicians by stratified random sampling to determine the following: age, gender, knowledge about prenatal diagnosis of diseases in high risk pregnancies, agreement with abortion, recommended gestational age for abortion, and, if opposed to abortion, the reason.
Results:
Of 323 physicians, who participated in the study, 91.3(295), 40.6(131), and 78.6%(254) were in agreement and 8.7(28), 59.4(192), and 21.4%(69) were opposed to abortion for thalassemia major, hemophilia, and Down&apos;s syndrome, respectively. Among 289 physicians opposed to abortion in respect of each of all three conditions, the following reasons were cited: religion, 18; emotional, 10; quality of care, 23; hope to find a new treatment option in the future, 103; miscellaneous reasons, 6; and a combination of these reasons, 129. Among 680 physicians in agreement with abortion in relation to all of the diseases, 4.6%(31) were agreed with abortion in less than 12 weeks gestation, 79.2%(538) in less than 16 weeks gestation, 5.6%(38) in less than 20 weeks gestation, 2.2%(15) in less than 24 weeks gestation, and 8.4%(58) were agreed with beyond the 24 weeks of gestational age.
Conclusion:
The majority of physicians were in agreement with abortion for thalassemia major and Down&apos;s syndrome because of the overall prognosis, but opposed to abortion for hemophilia.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/9/19</link>
                <dc:creator>Mehran Karimi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mohammadmehdi Bonyadi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mohhamad reza Galehdari</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Soheila Zareifar</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Ethics 2008, 9:19</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2008-12-23T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6939-9-19</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Ethics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6939</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>19</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2008-12-23T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
    </cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>
