Article info
PDFOriginal research
The biobank consent debate: Why ‘meta-consent’ is not the solution?
- Correspondence to Dr Neil C Manson, Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religion, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YL, UK; n.manson{at}lancaster.ac.uk
Citation
The biobank consent debate: Why ‘meta-consent’ is not the solution?
Publication history
- Received June 15, 2018
- Revised September 7, 2018
- Accepted September 12, 2018
- First published October 1, 2018.
Online issue publication
June 22, 2019
Article Versions
- Previous version (13 May 2019).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
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
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- The biobank consent debate: why ‘meta-consent’ is still the solution!
- Broadening consent—and diluting ethics?
- Obtaining informed consent for genomics research in Africa: analysis of H3Africa consent documents
- The ‘Expiry Problem’ of broad consent for biobank research - And why a meta consent model solves it
- Ethics of dead participants: policy recommendations for biobank research
- Public preferences towards data management and governance in Swiss biobanks: results from a nationwide survey
- Meta consent: a flexible and autonomous way of obtaining informed consent for secondary research
- The case against meta-consent: not only do Ploug and Holm not answer it, they make it even stronger
- Biobank research, informed consent and society. Towards a new alliance?
- Consent for the use of human biological samples for biomedical research: a mixed methods study exploring the UK public's preferences