Habilitationsschrift - Cologne. / Bibliography: p. 198-204.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio University, 1993. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 249-298).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Cornell University, 1994. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 472-485).

Thesis (PhD (Education management and Policy studies))-University of Pretoria, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.A. in educational administration)--Washington State University, May 2010. / Title from PDF title page (viewed on June 29, 2010). "Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology." Includes bibliographical references (p. 51-56).

No description available.

Thesis--Groningen. / Summary in Dutch. "Stellingen": [2] p. inserted. Includes bibliographical references (p. 180-184).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1982. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 474-513).

The entire thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file; a non-technical public abstract appears in the public.pdf file. Title from PDF of title page (University of Missouri--Columbia, viewed on October 20, 2009). Thesis advisor: Dr. James (Sandy) Rikoon. Includes bibliographical references.

I argue for two main theses that are at odds with the positions of many clinical researchers and philosophers who write on the ethics of clinical research. The first is that certain types of clinical trials, namely, randomized clinical trials with double or triple blinding and a placebo group are generally necessary to establish that a medical intervention is effective in treating a certain type of disease or disorder. The second main thesis is that such trials are generally not ethically impermissible. My minimalist defense of clinical trials differs from most defenses of clinical trials found in the literature. I feel that the ethical permissibility of clinical trials can be judged by answering yes to the following questions: 1) Is the potential experimental subject competent to exercise his autonomy and his right of self determination in order to enroll in the clinical trial? 2) Is the potential experimental subject informed about the nature of risk and benefit involved in his participation in the clinical trial? 3) Is the trial scientifically/ epistemically valid? 4) Will the trial attempt to answer a scientific question or questions of value? I argue that competent persons have the right to enroll in scientifically valid clinical trials so long as they are informed and consent to participate.