Literature DB >> 30872326

The biobank consent debate: why 'meta-consent' is still the solution!

Thomas Ploug1, Soren Holm2.   

Abstract

In a recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Neil Manson sets out to show that the meta-consent model of informed consent is not the solution to perennial debate on the ethics of biobank participation. In this response, we shall argue that (i) Manson's considerations on the costs of a meta-consent model are incomplete and therefore misleading; (ii) his view that a model of broad consent passes a threshold of moral acceptability rests on an analogy that misconstrues how biobank research is actually conducted and (iii) a model of meta-consent is more in tune with the nature of biobank research and enables autonomous choice. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Keywords:  biobank; informed consent; meta consent; research ethics

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30872326     DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2018-105258

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  5 in total

Review 1.  Regulations and Norms for Reuse of Residual Clinical Biospecimens and Health Data.

Authors:  Elizabeth E Umberfield; Sharon L R Kardia; Yun Jiang; Andrea K Thomer; Marcelline R Harris
Journal:  West J Nurs Res       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 1.774

2.  Evaluating models of consent in changing health research environments.

Authors:  Svenja Wiertz; Joachim Boldt
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2022-03-14

3.  Dynamic consent and personalised medicine.

Authors:  Liza Goncharov; Hanna Suominen; Matthew Cook
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 12.776

4.  Stakeholder perspectives on the ethico-legal dimensions of biobanking in South Africa.

Authors:  Shenuka Singh; Keymanthri Moodley
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 2.652

5.  In Defence of informed consent for health record research - why arguments from 'easy rescue', 'no harm' and 'consent bias' fail.

Authors:  Thomas Ploug
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2020-08-20       Impact factor: 2.652

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.