| Popis: |
Petrini C. J Blood Med. 2012;3:87–96.Page 89, Ownership of the body and its parts section, fourth paragraph, the wrong reference number has been cited in the fifth sentence, the correct reference number is 34 and the updated text should read “The Court ruled that the body should be returned to Doodeward because it had undergone “the lawful exercise of work or skill so […] that it has acquired some attributes differentiating it from a mere corpse awaiting burial.”34”Page 92, The need for guidelines section, second paragraph, the wrong reference number has been cited in the second sentence, the correct reference number is 22 and the updated text should read “The guidelines provide useful indications for the management of discarded units but do not address the matter of their possible use to develop blood-derived products or their possible commercialization (see, for example, paragraph “D9 disposal” of the NetCord guidelines22 on the subject of discarded cord blood units)”.Page 92, Proposed criteria for the case in point section, the wrong reference number has been cited in the first sentence, the correct reference number is 60 and the updated text should read “With reference to yet another authoritative document, it may be helpful to examine paragraph 2.08 (“Commercial use of human tissue”) of the Code of Medical Ethics published by the American Medical Association (Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs) already referred to,60 which states:”.Read the original article |
