Article info
Original research
The biobank consent debate: why ‘meta-consent’ is still the solution!
- Correspondence to Prof and Dr Thomas Ploug, Centre for Applied Ethics and Philosophy of Science, Aalborg University Copenhagen, København S 2450, Denmark; ploug{at}hum.aau.dk
Citation
The biobank consent debate: why ‘meta-consent’ is still the solution!
Publication history
- Received November 14, 2018
- Revised February 14, 2019
- Accepted February 24, 2019
- First published March 14, 2019.
Online issue publication
May 13, 2019
Article Versions
- Previous version (14 March 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
- 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
- International requirements for consent in biobank research: qualitative review of research guidelines
- 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 biobank consent debate: Why ‘meta-consent’ is not the solution?
- Biobank research, informed consent and society. Towards a new alliance?
- Ethics of dead participants: policy recommendations for biobank research
- Practice evaluation of biobank ethics and governance: current needs and future perspectives