Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics

Abstract

Informed consent is a central topic in contemporary biomedical ethics. Yet attempts to set defensible and feasible standards for consenting have led to persistent difficulties. In Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics, first published in 2007, Neil Manson and Onora O'Neill set debates about informed consent in medicine and research in a fresh light. They show why informed consent cannot be fully specific or fully explicit, and why more specific consent is not always ethically better. They argue that consent needs distinctive communicative transactions, by which other obligations, prohibitions, and rights can be waived or set aside in controlled and specific ways. Their book offers a coherent, wide-ranging and practical account of the role of consent in biomedicine which will be valuable to readers working in a range of areas in bioethics, medicine and law.

Aspectos eticos em estudos longitudinais: o caso do ELSA-Brasil

“…13 For communication to be effective, it is necessary to adopt a model that values both the transmitted content and the speech act, that is, how the actors involved in the communication act transmit proposals, understand them and respond to them. 16 Including in the TCLE all the relevant aspects in a way that is clear enough to be understood by a varied audience is always challenging. At the same time, it is desirable that the reading of the document is not tiresome, as part of its content is transmitted when the research is introduced to the eligible person.…”

Position statement on opportunistic genomic screening from the Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors (UK and Ireland)

“…Genetic 'information' covers a wide range of different types of information. 10 On the one hand it will include variations in the genetic code that are simply part of normal human variation and that carry no known health consequences. On the other it includes, for example, the inferences about a person's genetic code that can be made from their appearance or from a particular family history of a condition.…”

Secondary researchers’ duties to return incidental findings and individual research results: a partial-entrustment account

“…If that process is properly conducted, then, in addition to informing the participants and giving them a chance to express their autonomous choices, researchers are also, necessarily, obtaining permission to access private information pertaining to the participants' bodies and their health. 22 It is in accepting these special permissions that, the model argues, researchers take on special ancillary-care obligations.…”