Article Text
Abstract
Many accounts of informed consent in medical ethics claim that it is valuable because it supports individual autonomy. Unfortunately there are many distinct conceptions of individual autonomy, and their ethical importance varies. A better reason for taking informed consent seriously is that it provides assurance that patients and others are neither deceived nor coerced. Present debates about the relative importance of generic and specific consent (particularly in the use of human tissues for research and in secondary studies) do not address this issue squarely. Consent is a propositional attitude, so intransitive: complete, wholly specific consent is an illusion. Since the point of consent procedures is to limit deception and coercion, they should be designed to give patients and others control over the amount of information they receive and opportunity to rescind consent already given.
- informed consent
- implied consent
- generic consent
- specific consent
- autonomy
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Research involving storage and use of human tissue: how did the Human Tissue Act 2004 affect decisions by research ethics committees?
- Obtaining explicit consent for the use of archival tissue samples: practical issues
- Stored human tissue: an ethical perspective on the fate of anonymous, archival material
- Ownership and uses of human tissue: what are the opinions of surgical in-patients?
- Consent for the use of human biological samples for biomedical research: a mixed methods study exploring the UK public's preferences
- Using human tissue: when do we need consent?
- Human tissue legislation: listening to the professionals
- Informed consent for the study of retained tissues from postmortem examination following sudden infant death
- Human-tissue-related inventions: ownership and intellectual property rights in international collaborative research in developing countries
- Implications of the concept of minimal risk in research on informed choice in clinical practice