Literature DB >> 19771992

An empirical reappraisal of public trust in biobanking research: rethinking restrictive consent requirements.

Wendy Lipworth1, Bronwen Morrell, Rob Irvine, Ian Kerridge.   

Abstract

Collections of human tissue removed from patients in the course of medical diagnosis or therapy are believed to be an increasingly important resource for medical research (biobank research). As a result of a number of tissue-related "scandals" and increasing concern about ownership and privacy, the requirements to obtain consent from tissue donors are becoming increasingly stringent. The authors' data show that members of the general public perceive academic biobank researchers and their institutions to be highly trustworthy and do not see the need for recurrent, project-specific consent. They argue, on the basis of their empirical findings, that we should question the trend, at least in some settings, toward ever more stringent consent requirements for the use of tissue in research. They argue that this approach, while perhaps counterintuitive in the current regulatory environment, can be both ethically and legally sound so long as channels of communication are maintained and third-party relationships are tightly controlled.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19771992

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Law Med        ISSN: 1320-159X


  16 in total

Review 1.  The Bio-PIN: a concept to improve biobanking.

Authors:  J J Nietfeld; Jeremy Sugarman; Jan-Eric Litton
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 60.716

2.  "As Long as You Ask": A Qualitative Study of Biobanking Consent-Oncology Patients' and Health Care Professionals' Attitudes, Motivations, and Experiences-the B-PPAE Study.

Authors:  Sonia Yip; Jennifer Fleming; Heather L Shepherd; Adam Walczak; Jonathan Clark; Phyllis Butow
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2018-11-09

3.  Contributing to research via biobanks: what it means to cancer patients.

Authors:  Isabelle Pellegrini; Christian Chabannon; Julien Mancini; Frederic Viret; Norbert Vey; Claire Julian-Reynier
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Broad Consent for Research on Biospecimens: The Views of Actual Donors at Four U.S. Medical Centers.

Authors:  Teddy D Warner; Carol J Weil; Christopher Andry; Howard B Degenholtz; Lisa Parker; Latarsha J Carithers; Michelle Feige; David Wendler; Rebecca D Pentz
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 1.742

5.  Incorporating exclusion clauses into informed consent for biobanking.

Authors:  Zubin Master; David B Resnik
Journal:  Camb Q Healthc Ethics       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 6.  Ethical aspects of human biobanks: a systematic review.

Authors:  Danijela Budimir; Ozren Polasek; Ana Marusić; Ivana Kolcić; Tatijana Zemunik; Vesna Boraska; Ana Jeroncić; Mladen Boban; Harry Campbell; Igor Rudan
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.351

Review 7.  Research participants' perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: a review of empirical data and ethical analysis.

Authors:  Flavio D'Abramo; Jan Schildmann; Jochen Vollmann
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 2.652

Review 8.  Public Attitudes toward Biobanking of Human Biological Material for Research Purposes: A Literature Review.

Authors:  Jan Domaradzki; Jakub Pawlikowski
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  Public views on the donation and use of human biological samples in biomedical research: a mixed methods study.

Authors:  Celine Lewis; Margaret Clotworthy; Shona Hilton; Caroline Magee; Mark J Robertson; Lesley J Stubbins; Julie Corfield
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Falling giants and the rise of gene editing: ethics, private interests and the public good.

Authors:  Benjamin Capps; Ruth Chadwick; Yann Joly; John J Mulvihill; Tamra Lysaght; Hub Zwart
Journal:  Hum Genomics       Date:  2017-08-29       Impact factor: 4.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.