The requirement of informed consent (IC) to medical treatments is almost invariably justified with appeal to patient autonomy. Indeed, it is common to assume that there is a conceptual link between the principle of respect for autonomy and the requirement of IC, as in the influential work of Beauchamp and Childress. In this paper I will argue that the possible relation between the norm of respecting (or promoting) patient autonomy and IC is much weaker than conventionally conceived. One consequence of (...) this is that it is possible to exercise your autonomy without having the amount of and the kind of information that are assumed in the standard requirement of IC to medical treatments. In particular, I will argue that with a plausible conception of patient autonomy, the respect for and the promotion of patient autonomy are in certain circumstances better protected by giving patients the right to give their negatively informed consent to medical treatments. (shrink)

Over the course of its first seven editions, Principles of Biomedical Ethics has proved to be, globally, the most widely used, authored work in biomedical ethics. It is unique in being a book in bioethics used in numerous disciplines for purposes of instruction in bioethics. Its framework of moral principles is authoritative for many professional associations and biomedical institutions-for instruction in both clinical ethics and research ethics. It has been widely used in several disciplines for purposes of teaching in the (...) classroom, during conferences, etc. (shrink)

How should modern medicine's dramatic new powers to sustain life be employed? How should limited resources be used to extend and improve the quality of life? In this collection, Dan Brock, a distinguished philosopher and bioethicist and co-author of Deciding for Others (Cambridge, 1989), explores the moral issues raised by new ideals of shared decision making between physicians and patients. The book develops an ethical framework for decisions about life-sustaining treatment and euthanasia, and examines how these life and death decisions (...) are transformed in health policy when the focus shifts from what is best for a patient to what is just for all patients. Professor Brock combines acute philosophical analysis with a deep understanding of the realities of clinical health policy. This is a volume for philosophers concerned with medical ethics, health policy professionals, physicians interested in bioethics, and undergraduate courses in biomedical ethics. (shrink)

Book reviewed in this article: Principles of Biomedical Ethics. By Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress.

Many accounts of informed consent in medical ethics claim that it is valuable because it supports individual autonomy. Unfortunately there are many distinct conceptions of individual autonomy, and their ethical importance varies. A better reason for taking informed consent seriously is that it provides assurance that patients and others are neither deceived nor coerced. Present debates about the relative importance of generic and specific consent do not address this issue squarely. Consent is a propositional attitude, so intransitive: complete, wholly specific (...) consent is an illusion. Since the point of consent procedures is to limit deception and coercion, they should be designed to give patients and others control over the amount of information they receive and opportunity to rescind consent already given. (shrink)

Cancer susceptibility testing is likely to become routine in medical practice, despite many limitations and unanswered questions. These uncertainties greatly complicate the process of informed consent, creating an excellent opportunity to reconsider exactly how it should be conducted. Research with women's reactions to the availability of genetic susceptibility testing for breast cancer dramatically underscores that informed consent ought to be highly individualized, taking care to discern what patients believe about the disease and its causes and what role they want their (...) physician to play. (shrink)

Ethical guidelines commonly state that research subjects should have a right to withdraw consent to participate. According to the guidelines we have studied, this right applies also to research on biological samples. However, research conducted on human subjects themselves differs in important respects from research on biological samples. It is therefore not obvious that the same rights should be granted research participants in the two cases. This paper investigates arguments for and against granting a right to withdraw consent to research (...) on biobank samples. We conclude that (1) there are no explicit arguments for such a right in the guidelines we have studied, (2) the arguments against such a right are inconclusive, (3) considerations of autonomy, privacy, personal integrity, and trust in medical research provide sufficient reasons for granting a right to withdraw consent to research on biobank samples, (4) in certain cases, research participants should be allowed to waive this right. (shrink)

People taking part in research vary in the extent to which they understand information concerning their participation. Since they may choose to limit the time and effort spent on such information, lack of understanding is not necessarily an ethical problem. Researchers who notice a lack of understanding are in the quandary of not knowing whether this is due to flaws in the information process or to participants’ deliberate choices. We argue that the two explanations call for different responses.A tool for (...) identifying those research participants who want limited information is presented. This consists of a restricted number of questions about trust in and appraisal of research, priority of time and privacy, and perception of a duty to participate. It is argued that an important group of participants who purposely lack understanding of the study can be identified with this tool. Some limitations to this approach are also discussed. (shrink)

Based on extensive clinical questionnaire data, this paper explores the relation between research subjects’ self-assessed understanding and actual knowledge of a large-scale predictive screening study, and its implications for the proper handling of information and consent routines in longitudinal studies. The intitial data show that low self-assessed understanding among participants was correlated with limited knowledge, concern over participation and collected samples, less satisfaction with information, and feeling passive or negative towards the study. Among those reporting high understanding, a non-negligible number (...) displayed a lack of knowledge regarding central aspects of the study. Regarding high assessed understanding, the multivariate analysis identified the main predictor variables to be knowledge, having a positive attitude towards participation and the study itself, being satisfied with information, having a stable psychosocial background and feeling calm regarding the handling of samples. These findings indicate that to evaluate participants' understanding through self-assessment may not be reliable method. Self-assessed understanding may rather be a good indicator of general attitudes than a tool for analysing content. The data also show that actual understanding varies considerably among participants, suggesting that more effort needs to be put into adjusting the information to the needs of different subgroups. It is argued that when doing this, researchers in longitudinal studies must be careful not to exhaust participants with excessive information that they do not want and that may cause them to drop out. The ethical relevance of obtaining repeated consents in longitudinal research is discussed. (shrink)

Participants in clinical studies are frequently unable to remember study information for the duration of their participation in the research. Along with a nine-member work group and a seven-member advisory group, we determined that six elements of consent are necessary to uphold the validity of consent over time: awareness of ongoing participation; understanding the right to withdraw; understanding that withdrawal will not influence other treatment options; knowledge of the general purpose of the research; knowledge of potential risks of participation; and (...) understanding of the differences between traditional, individualized clinical care and standardized treatment during research participation. Based on these important elements, we developed an Assessment of Sustained Informed Consent as a tool to periodically review a protocol’s essential elements with its participants. We hope this will be a useful means of confirming research participants’ continued knowledge of the critical elements of consent, and of identifying those subjects who need reminding. (shrink)