Article info
PDFCommentary
Taxonomy of justifications for consent waivers: When and why are public views relevant?
- Correspondence to Dr Angela Ballantyne, Primary Health Care and General Practice, Otago University, Wellington 6012, New Zealand; angela.ballantyne{at}otago.ac.nz
Citation
Taxonomy of justifications for consent waivers: When and why are public views relevant?
Publication history
- Received January 14, 2019
- Accepted January 22, 2019
- First published March 12, 2019.
Online issue publication
June 22, 2019
Article Versions
- Previous version (22 June 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
- Public interest in health data research: laying out the conceptual groundwork
- Consent and the ethical duty to participate in health data research
- Presumed consent in emergency neonatal research
- Turning residual human biological materials into research collections: playing with consent
- Informed consent in cluster randomised trials: a guide for the perplexed
- The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble
- How should we think about clinical data ownership?
- Taking it to the bank: the ethical management of individual findings arising in secondary research
- Seamless EMR data access: Integrated governance, digital health and the OMOP-CDM
- The perils of a broad approach to public interest in health data research: a response to Ballantyne and Schaefer