Article info
PDFResponse
The case against meta-consent: not only do Ploug and Holm not answer it, they make it even stronger
- Correspondence to Dr Neil C Manson, Dept of Politics, Philosophy and Religion, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YL, UK; n.manson{at}lancaster.ac.uk
Citation
The case against meta-consent: not only do Ploug and Holm not answer it, they make it even stronger
Publication history
- Received November 13, 2019
- Accepted November 27, 2019
- First published December 6, 2019.
Online issue publication
August 26, 2020
Article Versions
- Previous version (26 August 2020).
- 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)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- Public preferences towards data management and governance in Swiss biobanks: results from a nationwide survey
- Broadening consent—and diluting ethics?
- The ‘Expiry Problem’ of broad consent for biobank research - And why a meta consent model solves it
- The biobank consent debate: Why ‘meta-consent’ is not the solution?
- Obtaining informed consent for genomics research in Africa: analysis of H3Africa consent documents
- The biobank consent debate: why ‘meta-consent’ is still the solution!
- Meta consent: a flexible and autonomous way of obtaining informed consent for secondary research
- Ethics of dead participants: policy recommendations for biobank research
- Biobank research, informed consent and society. Towards a new alliance?
- Practice evaluation of biobank ethics and governance: current needs and future perspectives