References
- Bach M., Rock M. Seeking consent to participate in research from people whose ability to make an informed decision could be questioned: The supported decision‐making model. The Roeher Institute, Ontario 1996
- Charlton J. Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA 1998
- Clements J., Rapley M., Cummins R. On, to, for, with – vulnerable people and the practices of the research community. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 1999; 27: 103–115
- Dalton A., McVilly K. Ethics guidelines for international, multicenter research involving people with intellectual disabilities (Guidelines commissioned by the International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disability [IASSID]). Journal of Policy & Practice in Intellectual Disabilities 2004; 1: 57–70
- Department of Constitutional Affairs. Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice: Consultation paper. Author, LondonUK 2006
- Dinerstein R., Herr S., O'Sullivan J. A guide to consent. American Association on Mental Retardation, , Washington, DC 1999
- Freedman R. Ethical challenges in the conduct of research involving persons with mental retardation. Mental Retardation 2001; 39: 130–141
- Griffin T., Balandin S. Ethical research involving people with intellectual disabilities. The international handbook of applied research in intellectual disabilities, Emerson E, Hatton C, Thompson T, Parmenter T. R. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterUK 2004; 61–82
- Iacono T. Ethical challenges and complexities of including people with intellectual disability as participants in research. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability 2006; 31: 173–179
- Lipson J. Ethical issues in ethnography. Critical issues in qualitative research methods, Morse J. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA 1994; 333–355
- Pettit P. Instituting a research ethic: Chilling and cautionary tales. Bioethics 1992; 6: 89–112
- Sturman E. D. The capacity to consent to treatment and research: A review of standardized assessment tools. Clinical Psychology Review 2005; 25: 954–974