{{item.fa_name}}
جستوجوی دقیق برای معنی disposition در واژهنامه ترجمیک
زمان جستجو: ۰.۰۰۳ هزارم ثانیه
درباره واژهنامه ترجمیک
۰ 
۰[توسط مترجم]
[... عمومی ...]
فرایند گروهبندی قطعات برگشتی
۰ ۰[توسط مترجم]
[... عمومی ...]
دفع، از بین بردن
۰ ۰[توسط مترجم]
[... عمومی ...]
سرکشی
۰ ۰[General]
[... عمومی ...]
طینت
۰ ۰[General]
[... عمومی ...]
مشرب
۰ ۰[General]
[... عمومی ...]
طبع
۰ ۰[MedicalDic]
[... عمومی ...]
انهدام
۰ ۰[توسط مترجم]
[... عمومی ...]
انتقال و واگذاری
۰ ۰[General]
[... عمومی ...]
غلق
۰ ۰[توسط مترجم]
[روانشناسی]
خصیصه
معنی disposition, معنی یهسحخسهفهخئ, معنی disposition, معنی اصطلاح disposition, معادل disposition, disposition چی میشه؟, disposition یعنی چی؟, disposition synonym, disposition definition,
معنی balance, ترجمه balance به فارسی, معنی weeping, ترجمه weeping به فارسی, معنی رکبة, معنی Abstract The biobank consent debate is one with deeply held convictions on both the ‘broad’ and ‘specific’ side with little sign of resolution. Recently, Thomas Ploug and Soren Holm have developed an alternative to both specific and broad consent: a meta‐consent framework. The aim here is to consider whether meta‐consent provides a ‘solution’ to the biobank consent debate. We clarify what ‘meta‐consent’ actually is (arguing that the label is a misnomer and ‘consent à la carte’ is more accurate). We identify problems with Ploug and Holm’s arguments, and some challenges for metaconsent. We focus on whether there is any ethical obligation to provide consent à la carte. There may seem to be so, especially if we draw upon an unclear appeal to the ethical significance of ‘respect for autonomy’. Similarly, there might seem to be an intuitive inference from the fact that ethically legitimate research requires informed consent to the conclusion that it thereby requires consent à la carte. It is shown that this line o, ترجمه Abstract The biobank consent debate is one with deeply held convictions on both the ‘broad’ and ‘specific’ side with little sign of resolution. Recently, Thomas Ploug and Soren Holm have developed an alternative to both specific and broad consent: a meta‐consent framework. The aim here is to consider whether meta‐consent provides a ‘solution’ to the biobank consent debate. We clarify what ‘meta‐consent’ actually is (arguing that the label is a misnomer and ‘consent à la carte’ is more accurate). We identify problems with Ploug and Holm’s arguments, and some challenges for metaconsent. We focus on whether there is any ethical obligation to provide consent à la carte. There may seem to be so, especially if we draw upon an unclear appeal to the ethical significance of ‘respect for autonomy’. Similarly, there might seem to be an intuitive inference from the fact that ethically legitimate research requires informed consent to the conclusion that it thereby requires consent à la carte. It is shown that this line o به فارسی,
ترجمه مقاله فارسی به انگلیسی،
ترجمه مقالات انگلیسی