| Title |
Evaluation of EU legislation on blood: a bioethical point of view
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Blood Medicine, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jbm.s149417 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carlo Petrini |
| Abstract |
A review of the European Union (EU) regulations concerning blood, tissues, and cells of human origin is under way in the EU. From the ethical point of view, the non-remuneration of donations and the ban on deriving gain from human biological materials are of particular significance. While the basic ethical principles involved in the procurement, preservation, and use of these materials are the same, their practical application should be adapted to the specific context of each material. In the case of donation and use of blood, in particular, the issue of legitimate reimbursements to donors and for transfusion centers has to be managed in accordance with the principle of non-commercialization. There is also a need for strict rules to avoid possible commercial spillover effects from blood-derived products. The author proposes ethical criteria regarding reimbursements to donors, costs associated with processing, and the development (and possible marketing) of products. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 28% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 11% |
| Engineering | 2 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 December 2017.
All research outputs
#15,484,498
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Blood Medicine
#150
of 292 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,076
of 329,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Blood Medicine
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 292 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,172 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.