Article Text
Abstract
Although advance directives have become a familiar instrument within the context of treatment, there has been minimal support for their expansion into the context of research. In this paper I argue that the principle of precedent autonomy that grants a competent person the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment when later incompetent, also grants a competent person the right to consent to research that is greater than minimal risk. An examination of the principle of precedent autonomy reveals that a future-binding research decision is within the scope of a competent person's critical interests, if the decision is consistent with what the person believes gives her life intrinsic value.
- Autonomy
- Clinical Trials
- Research Ethics
- Research on Special Populations
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.
Copyright information:
Linked Articles
- Research ethics
- Research ethics
- Research ethics
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Tom Buller on the principle of precedent autonomy and the relation between critical and experiential interests
- Precedent autonomy should be respected in life-sustaining treatment decisions
- Should we respect precedent autonomy in life-sustaining treatment decisions?
- Dementia research and advance consent: it is not about critical interests
- Socially and temporally extended end-of-life decision-making process for dementia patients
- Advance euthanasia directives and the Dutch prosecution
- Best interests and the sanctity of life after W v M
- Clarifying best interests
- Family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: who should decide?
- Substituted decision making and the dispositional choice account