Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T18:29:32.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Defense of Broad Consent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2011

GERT HELGESSON
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Proper procedures for informed consent are widely recognized as an ethical requirement for biomedical research involving human beings, in particular as a means to respect the autonomy and personal integrity of potential and actual research participants.

Type
Special Section: Open Forum
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 40 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Beauchamp, T, Childress, R.Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 6th ed.New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.Google Scholar

2. Elger, BS, Caplan, AL.Consent and anonymization in research involving biobanks. EMBO Reports 2006;7:661–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Knoppers, BM.Biobanking: International norms. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2005;33:7–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. Maschke, KJ.Navigating an ethical patchwork—human gene banks. Nature Biotechnology 2005;23(5):539–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. Van Veen, BE.Human tissue bank regulations. Nature Biotechnology 2006;24(5):496–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Árnason, V.Coding and consent: Moral challenges of the database project in Iceland. Bioethics 2004; 18:27–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. Caulfield, T.Biobanks and blanket consent: The proper place of the public good and public perception rationales. Kings Law Journal 2007;18:209–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Elger, B. Consent and use of samples. In: Elger, B, Biller-Andorno, N, Mauron, A, Capron, AM, eds. Ethical Issues in Governing Biobanks: Global Perspectives. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008:57–88.Google Scholar

9. Hofmann, B.Broadening consent—and diluting ethics? Journal of Medical Ethics 2009;35:125–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10. Cambon-Thomsen, A, Rial-Sebbag, E, Knoppers, BM.Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks. European Respiratory Journal 2007;30:373–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Haga, SB, Beskow, LM.Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetic research. Advances in Genetics 2008;60:505–44.Google Scholar

12. Hansson, MG, Dillner, J, Bartram, CR, Carlson, JA, Helgesson, G.Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncology 2006;7(3):266–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

13. Petrini, C. “Broad” consent, exceptions to consent and the question of using biological samples for research purposes different from the initial collection purpose. Social Science & Medicine 2010;70:217–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

14. See note 1, Beauchamp, Childress 2009.

15. Faden, R, Beauchamp, T.A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.Google Scholar

16. Eriksson, S, Helgesson, G.Potential harms, anonymization, and the right to withdraw consent to biobank research. European Journal of Human Genetics 2005;13:1071–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

17. See note 12, Hansson et al. 2006.

18. Dillner, J, Lenner, P, Lehtinen, M, Eklund, C, Heino, P, Wiklund, F, et al. . A population-based seroepidemiological study of cervical cancer. Cancer Research 1994;54:134–41.Google ScholarPubMed

19. Sigstad, E, Lie, AK, Luostarinen, T, Dillner, J, Jellum, E, Lehtinen, M, et al. . A prospective study of the relationship between prediagnostic human papillomavirus seropositivity and HPV DNA in subsequent cervical carcinomas. British Journal of Cancer 2002;87:175–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

20. See note 12, Hansson et al. 2006 and see note 13, Petrini 2010.

21. See notes 10–13.

22. See note 6, Árnason 2004, at 41.

23. See note 8, Elger 2008, at 57.

24. See note 7, Caulfield 2007, at 213.

25. See note 8, Elger 2008:57, and see note 9, Hofmann 2009.

26. See note 1, Beauchamp, Childress 2009.

27. See note 12, Hansson et al. 2006.

28. See note 9, Hofmann 2009.

29. Lynöe, N, Hoeyer, K.Quantitative aspects of informed consent: Considering the dose response curve when estimating quantity of information. Journal of Medical Ethics 2005;31:736–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. Harmon, A.Indian tribe wins fight to limit research of its DNA. The New York Times 2010 Apr 21.Google Scholar

31. Harmon, A.Havasupai case highlights risks in DNA research. The New York Times 2010 Apr 22.Google Scholar

32. Harmon, A.Where’d you go with my DNA? The New York Times 2010 Apr 24.Google Scholar

33. See note 30, Harmon 2010 Apr 21.

34. Rubin, P.Havasupai tribe win nice settlement from ASU in scandalous blood-sample case. Phoenix New Times 2010 Apr 22.Google Scholar

35. Hofmann, BM.Bypassing consent for research on biological material. Nature Biotechnology 2008;26(9):979–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

36. Shickle, D.The consent problem within DNA biobanks. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 2006;37:503–19, at 516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed