@article {Ploug295, author = {Thomas Ploug and Soren Holm}, title = {The biobank consent debate: why {\textquoteleft}meta-consent{\textquoteright} is still the solution!}, volume = {45}, number = {5}, pages = {295--297}, year = {2019}, doi = {10.1136/medethics-2018-105258}, publisher = {Institute of Medical Ethics}, abstract = {In a recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Neil Manson sets out to show that the meta-consent model of informed consent is not the solution to perennial debate on the ethics of biobank participation. In this response, we shall argue that (i) Manson{\textquoteright}s considerations on the costs of a meta-consent model are incomplete and therefore misleading; (ii) his view that a model of broad consent passes a threshold of moral acceptability rests on an analogy that misconstrues how biobank research is actually conducted and (iii) a model of meta-consent is more in tune with the nature of biobank research and enables autonomous choice.}, issn = {0306-6800}, URL = {https://jme.bmj.com/content/45/5/295}, eprint = {https://jme.bmj.com/content/45/5/295.full.pdf}, journal = {Journal of Medical Ethics} }