Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Using informed consent to save trust
  1. Nir Eyal
  1. Correspondence to Dr Nir Eyal, Program in Ethics and Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02139, USA; nir_eyal{at}hms.harvard.edu

Abstract

Increasingly, bioethicists defend informed consent as a safeguard for trust in caretakers and medical institutions. This paper discusses an ‘ideal type’ of that move. What I call the trust-promotion argument for informed consent states:

1. Social trust, especially trust in caretakers and medical institutions, is necessary so that, for example, people seek medical advice, comply with it, and participate in medical research.

2. Therefore, it is usually wrong to jeopardise that trust.

3. Coercion, deception, manipulation and other violations of standard informed consent requirements seriously jeopardise that trust.

4. Thus, standard informed consent requirements are justified.

This article describes the initial promise of this argument, then identifies challenges to it. As I show, the value of trust fails to account for some commonsense intuitions about informed consent. We should revise the argument, commonsense morality, or both.

  • Coercion
  • Informed Consent
  • Truth Disclosure
  • Right to Refuse Treatment
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • Commentary
    Torbjörn Tännsjö
  • Commentary
    Sissela Bok
  • Commentary
    Nir Eyal
  • The concise argument
    Rebecca Roache