
doi: 10.1007/bf00489214
pmid: 11643001
Any area that surges ahead as rapidly as this one [clinical ethics] has over the last five years is virtually certain to find that there are many problems which will need to be addressed. There will also be a need for persons working in this field (or studying it) to take some time to reflect on where it is going, as well as to examine some of the possible pitfalls -- both the obvious and the not so obvious -- which lie ahead. The series of papers in this issue of Theoretical Medicine have been written by a group of ethicists who have had a longstanding interest in the field of clinical ethics, and most of whom have spent many years working in the area. While all of the papers focus on the field of clinical ethics, they are very diverse in the topics covered. Some may be viewed as controversial by readers....
Ethics, Ethics Committees, Ethics, Clinical, Ethicists, Ethics Consultation, Ethics, Medical, Ethics Committees, Clinical, Societies, Hospitals, Ethics, Professional
Ethics, Ethics Committees, Ethics, Clinical, Ethicists, Ethics Consultation, Ethics, Medical, Ethics Committees, Clinical, Societies, Hospitals, Ethics, Professional
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
