Skip to main content
Log in

Some Popular Versions of Uninformed Consent

  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A patient's informed consent is required by the Nuremberg code, and its successors, before she can be entered into a clinical trial. However, concern has been expressed by both patients and professionals about the beneficial or detrimental effect on the patient of asking for her consent. We examine advantages and drawbacks of popular variations on consent, which might reduce the stress on patients at the point of illness. Both informed and uninformed responses to particular trials, and trials in general, are discussed. The selection by doctors of patients, to whom entry to trials will be offered, is explored.

Alternative forms of consent require restrictions on patients' knowledge, personal responsibility and freedom of choice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ashcroft, J.J., Leinster, S.J. and Slade, P.D. (1985) Breast Cancer - Patient Choice of Treatment: Preliminary Communication. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 78, 43–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashcroft, R.E., Chadwick, D.W., Clark, S.R.L., Edwards, R.H.T., Frith, L. and Hutton, J.L. (1997) Implication of socio-cultural contexts for the ethics of clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment 1(9), iv–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, M. (1986) Do We Need Informed Consent? The Lancet, 911–912.

  • Baum, M. (1993) New Approach for Recruitment into Randomised Controlled Trials. The Lancet 341 812–813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, D.A. (1993) The Case for Bayesianism in Clinical Trials. In D. Ashby (Ed.), Papers from the Conference on Methodological and Ethical Issues in Clinical Trials, 27-28 June 1991, Vol. 12, Statistics in Medicine, Wiley, pp. 1377–1393.

  • Brazier, M. (1992) Medicine, Patients and the Law (2 edn.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bursztajn, H.J., Feinbloom, R.I., Hamm, R.M. and Brodsky, A. (1990) Medical Choices, Medical Chances (2 edn.). New York and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, A. (1988) Is There an Obligation to Participate in Biomedical Research? In S.F. Spicker et al. (Eds.), The Use of Human Beings in Research, with Special Reference to Clinical Trials. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, I. (1983) Scientific Inquiry and Authoritarianism in Perinatal Care and Education.Birth 10, 151–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, I. and Silverman, W. (1987) Professional and Public Double Standards on Clinical Experimentation. Controlled Clinical Trials 8, 388–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the International Organisation ofMedical Sciences (1993) International Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. esp. Guidelines 1-3.

  • Edwards, S.J.L., Lilford, R.J., Braunholtz, D.A., Jackson, J., Hewison, J. and Thornton, J. (1998) Ethical Issues in the Design and Conduct of Randomised Controlled Trials. Health Technology Assessment 2(15), vi–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanauske-Abel, H.M. (1996) Not a Slippery Slope or Sudden Subversion: German Medicine and National Socialism in 1993. British Medical Journal 313, 1453–1463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. (1996) Patients Should not be Discouraged from Entering Trials. British Medical Journal 313, 1488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilden, J. and Habbema, J.D.F. (1987) Prognosis in Medicine: An Analysis of Its Meaning and Roles. Theoretical Medicine 8, 349–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilden, J. and Habbema, J.D.F. (1990) The Marriage of Clinical Trials and Clinical Decision Science. Statistics in Medicine 9, 1243–1257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, A.B. (1992) Statistical Methods in Clinical and Preventive Medicine. Edinburgh and London: E & S Livingstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beecher, H.K. (1970) Research and the Individual. London: J & A Churchill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, J.L. (1995) Statistics is Essential for Professional Ethics. Journal of Applied Philosophy 12, 253–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, J.L. (1996) The Ethics of Randomised Controlled Trials: AMatter of Statistical Belief.Health Care Analysis 4, 95–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, J.L. (1998) Medical Ethics and Statistics. In D.G. Altman et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. London: John Wiley and sons, pp. 2540–2546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehn, D. (1994) The Ground of Professional Ethics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978) The Belmont Report: Ethical Guidelines and Principles for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: US government printing office. BHEW publication (OS)78-0012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuremberg Code (1947); see (1996) British Medical Journal 313, 1449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pocock, S.J. (1992) When to Stop a Clinical Trial. British Medical Journal 305, 235–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prescott, R., Gillespie, W., Counsell, C., Grant, A.M., Ross, S., Russell, I. and Kiauka, S. (1998) Factors that Limit the Number, Quality and Progress of Randomised Trials. In N. Black et al. (Eds.), Health Services Research Methods. London: BMJ Books, pp. 86–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, K.M., Margolese, R.G. and Soskolne, C.L. (1984) Physicians' Reasons for not Entering Eligible Patients in a Randomized Clinical Trial of Surgery for Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 310, 1363–1367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, H. (1992) Breast Cancer Trials: A Patient's Viewpoint. The Lancet 339, 44–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, H. (1994) Clinical Trials - a Brave New Partnership. Journal of Medical Ethics 20, 19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toynbee, P. (1996) No One ReallyWins in This Life-and-death Lottery. The Independent May 25, 15 (cols 1-7).

  • Vollmann, J. and Winau, R. (1996) Informed Consent in Human Experimentation before the Nuremberg Code. British Medical Journal 313, 1445–1450.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Medical Association (1996) Declaration of Helsinki (1964, 1975, 1983, 1989, 1996, currently under review), see (1996). British Medical Journal 313, 1449–1450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelen, M. (1979) A New Design for Randomized Clinical Trials. New England Journal of Medicine 300, 1242–11245.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hutton, J.L., Ashcroft, R.E. Some Popular Versions of Uninformed Consent. Health Care Analysis 8, 41–53 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009421824028

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009421824028

Navigation