Article Text
PDF
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Twitter @a_wardrope, @NeuroSimon, @Dr_J_M_Dickson
Contributors Discussions between AW, SB, MR and TW raised the initial concerns regarding decision-making by and for PwD that shaped this project and our approach to consent to research participation. AW devised the theoretical argument. DB, SB, MR and TW reviewed relevant empirical literature bearing on the argument. JD reviewed relevant primary care decision-making literature. AW, TW, SB and DB developed the research participation consent procedure sketched in the article. AW drafted the manuscript. All others edited and revised the draft to produce the final manuscript submitted for review.
Funding This study was funded by Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (NIHR150756).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Adverse consequences of article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for persons with mental disabilities and an alternative way forward
- Advance consent, critical interests and dementia research
- Autonomy-based criticisms of the patient preference predictor
- Consent for anaesthesia
- First among equals? Adaptive preferences and the limits of autonomy in medical ethics
- Forced caesareans: applying ordinary standards to an extraordinary case
- Undermining autonomy and consent: the transformative experience of disease
- Medical ethics for children: applying the four principles to paediatrics
- Response to commentaries: ‘autonomy-based criticisms of the patient preference predictor’
- On Wilkinson: unpacking Parfit, paternalism and the primacy of autonomy in contemporary bioethics