ORCID Profile
0000-0002-6515-2406
Current Organisations
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
,
Macquarie University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 1995
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Date: 26-01-2021
DOI: 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198827580.013.33
Abstract: This chapter evaluates the relationship between autonomy and freedom of speech, examining a variety of autonomy-based justifications for the importance of speech and especially of freedom of speech. The differences between these justifications relate not only to the different conceptions of autonomy that underpin them, but also to their different responses to the problem of competing autonomy interests. It is plausible to think that the state should respect, protect, and promote the autonomy of everyone—speakers, listeners, thinkers, bystanders, and members of the public at large. Enhancing the autonomy of some might, however, require restricting the speech of others. The liberty-based conceptions of autonomy prioritize the interests of speakers and listeners and hold that the primary obligation of the state is the negative duty not to interfere with the autonomy of in idual speakers and listeners. By contrast, the relational conceptions of autonomy hold that the negative liberty interests of in idual speakers and hearers should be balanced against the positive duties of the state to promote the social conditions necessary for the development and exercise of autonomy by all citizens.
Publisher: Routledge-Cavendish
Date: 02-06-2006
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 2022
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2020-048166
Abstract: Behavioural interventions in early life appear to show some effect in reducing childhood overweight and obesity. However, uncertainty remains regarding their overall effectiveness, and whether effectiveness differs among key subgroups. These evidence gaps have prompted an increase in very early childhood obesity prevention trials worldwide. Combining the in idual participant data (IPD) from these trials will enhance statistical power to determine overall effectiveness and enable examination of in idual and trial-level subgroups. We present a protocol for a systematic review with IPD meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of obesity prevention interventions commencing antenatally or in the first year after birth, and to explore whether there are differential effects among key subgroups. Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycInfo and trial registries for all ongoing and completed randomised controlled trials evaluating behavioural interventions for the prevention of early childhood obesity have been completed up to March 2021 and will be updated annually to include additional trials. Eligible trialists will be asked to share their IPD if unavailable, aggregate data will be used where possible. An IPD meta-analysis and a nested prospective meta-analysis will be performed using methodologies recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. The primary outcome will be body mass index z-score at age 24±6 months using WHO Growth Standards, and effect differences will be explored among prespecified in idual and trial-level subgroups. Secondary outcomes include other child weight-related measures, infant feeding, dietary intake, physical activity, sedentary behaviours, sleep, parenting measures and adverse events. Approved by The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2020/273) and Flinders University Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee (HREC CIA2133-1). Results will be relevant to clinicians, child health services, researchers, policy-makers and families, and will be disseminated via publications, presentations and media releases. CRD42020177408.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 2022
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2020-048165
Abstract: Little is known about how early (eg, commencing antenatally or in the first 12 months after birth) obesity prevention interventions seek to change behaviour and which components are or are not effective. This study aims to (1) characterise early obesity prevention interventions in terms of target behaviours, delivery features and behaviour change techniques (BCTs), (2) explore similarities and differences in BCTs used to target behaviours and (3) explore effectiveness of intervention components in preventing childhood obesity. Annual comprehensive systematic searches will be performed in Epub Ahead of Print/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL), CINAHL, PsycINFO, as well as clinical trial registries. Eligible randomised controlled trials of behavioural interventions to prevent childhood obesity commencing antenatally or in the first year after birth will be invited to join the Transforming Obesity in CHILDren Collaboration. Standard ontologies will be used to code target behaviours, delivery features and BCTs in both published and unpublished intervention materials provided by trialists. Narrative syntheses will be performed to summarise intervention components and compare applied BCTs by types of target behaviours. Exploratory analyses will be undertaken to assess effectiveness of intervention components. The study has been approved by The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (project no. 2020/273) and Flinders University Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee (project no. HREC CIA2133-1). The study’s findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and targeted communication with key stakeholders. CRD42020177408.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 23-08-2019
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 07-1994
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Date: 09-10-2008
Publisher: American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Date: 10-2017
DOI: 10.1002/2017JG003943
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 03-09-2015
DOI: 10.1111/BIOE.12111
Abstract: Demands for access to experimental therapies are frequently framed in the language of rights. This article examines the justifiability of such demands in the specific context of surgical innovations, these being promising but non-validated and potentially risky departures from standard surgical practices. I argue that there is a right to access innovative surgery, drawing analogies with other generally accepted rights in medicine, such as the right not to be forcibly treated, to buy contraceptives, and to choose to have an abortion, including a post-viability abortion where the mother's life or health is threatened by the pregnancy. I argue that we accept these rights because we believe that people are entitled to try to preserve their lives and health and to make choices of an important and intensely personal kind, and I suggest that a person's choice of medical treatment should be seen in the same light. However, since few rights are absolute, I also consider the circumstances in which it may be justifiable to limit the right to access innovative surgery. In discussing this question, I apply the human rights standard of proportionality, comparing the importance of the reasons for limiting the right with the severity of the invasion on liberty.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 02-01-2015
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 29-10-2203
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 06-2012
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 17-10-2015
DOI: 10.1093/OJLS/GQU024
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Date: 30-05-1991
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 10-1982
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 22-11-2017
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 1991
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 05-1982
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 24-10-2013
DOI: 10.1093/JMP/JHT047
Abstract: Surgical innovation involves practices, such as new devices, technologies, procedures, or applications, which are novel and untested. Although innovative practices are believed to offer an improvement on the standard surgical approach, they may prove to be inefficacious or even dangerous. This article considers how surgeons considering innovation should reason in the conditions of uncertainty that characterize innovative surgery. What attitude to the unknown risks of innovative surgery should they take? The answer to this question involves value judgments about the acceptability of risk taking when satisfactory scientific information is not available. This question has been confronted in legal contexts, where risk aversion in the form of the precautionary principle has become increasingly influential as a regulatory response to innovative technologies that pose uncertain future hazards. This article considers whether it is appropriate to apply a precautionary approach when making decisions about innovative surgery.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 10-1979
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 2000
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 20-06-2017
DOI: 10.1007/S11673-017-9791-Z
Abstract: This article considers the issue of expanded access to innovative treatments in the context of recent legislative initiatives in the United Kingdom and the United States. In the United Kingdom, the supporters of legislative change argued that the common law principles governing medical negligence are a barrier to innovation. In an attempt to remove this perceived impediment, two bills proposed that innovating doctors sued for negligence should be able to rely in their defence on the fact that their decision to innovate was "responsible." A decision to innovate would be regarded as responsible if it followed a specified process. Although these changes to the law of medical negligence were not passed, this article argues that the idea of a process-based approach was sound. In the United States, a number of states have passed "Right to Try" laws that permit doctors to prescribe and companies to provide investigational products without the need for FDA approval. These laws do not purport to and nor are they able to alter the obligations of in iduals and companies under federal law. They are consequently unlikely to achieve their stated aim of expanding access to investigational products. This article argues that they nevertheless have a cogent rationale in so far as they highlight the need for rights-based reform to federal regulations governing access.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 31-07-2018
DOI: 10.1111/PHC3.12548
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2010
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 03-2006
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-2013
DOI: 10.1111/ANS.12271
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 03-2014
No related grants have been discovered for Denise Meyerson.