Article info
PDFThe concise argument
The concise argument
Citation
The concise argument
Publication history
- First published November 30, 2009.
Online issue publication
November 30, 2009
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Institute of Medical Ethics. All rights reserved.
Other content recommended for you
- Can the Catholic Church agree to condom use by HIV - discordant couples
- Risk factors for incident HSV-2 infections among a prospective cohort of HIV-1 - discordant couples in China
- Genetic selection for deafness: the views of hearing children of deaf adults
- Does the doctrine of double effect apply to the prescription of barbiturates? Syme vs the Medical Board of Australia
- A response to critics: weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation
- HIV testing to the test: does HIV testing promote HIV prevention in HIV - uninfected adults
- Is sexual risk taking behaviour changing in rural south - west Uganda? Behaviour trends in a rural population cohort 1993–2006
- High HIV risk in a cohort of male sex workers from Nairobi, Kenya
- The effect of HIV counselling and testing on HIV acquisition in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review
- Weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation