In defense of broad consent

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 40-50

  Helgesson, Gert ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMERICAN INDIAN; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; DIABETES MELLITUS; ETHICS; FORECASTING; GENETICS; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESEARCH SUBJECT; RISK; STANDARD; TRUST; UNITED STATES;

COMPREHENSION; DIABETES MELLITUS; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; FORECASTING; GENETIC RESEARCH; HUMANS; INDIANS, NORTH AMERICAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; RISK; TISSUE BANKS; TRUST; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84055217709     PISSN: 09631801     EISSN: 14692147     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S096318011100048X     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Beauchamp T, Childress R. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.
2. Elger BS, Caplan AL. Consent and anonymization in research involving biobanks. EMBO Reports 2006;7:661-6.
3. Knoppers BM. Biobanking: International norms. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2005;33: 7-14. (Pubitemid 40591966)
4. Maschke KJ. Navigating an ethical patchwork-human gene banks. Nature Biotechnology 2005;23(5):539-45. (Pubitemid 41724888)
5. Van Veen BE. Human tissue bank regulations. Nature Biotechnology 2006;24(5):496-7.
6. Árnason V. Coding and consent: Moral challenges of the database project in Iceland. Bioethics 2004; 18:27-49. (Pubitemid 38453590)
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.
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.
9. Hofmann B. Broadening consent-and diluting ethics? Journal of Medical Ethics 2009;35: 125-9.
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. (Pubitemid 47194191)
11. Haga SB, Beskow LM. Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetic research. Advances in Genetics 2008;60:505-44.
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. (Pubitemid 43286456)
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.
14. See note 1, Beauchamp, Childress 2009.
15. Faden R, Beauchamp T. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.
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. (Pubitemid 43073615)
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. (Pubitemid 24042100)
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.
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. (Pubitemid 43013388)
30. Harmon A. Indian tribe wins fight to limit research of its DNA. The New York Times 2010 Apr 21.
31. Harmon A. Havasupai case highlights risks in DNA research. The New York Times 2010 Apr 22.
32. Harmon A. Where'd you go with my DNA? The New York Times 2010 Apr 24.
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.
35. Hofmann BM. Bypassing consent for research on biological material. Nature Biotechnology 2008;26(9):979-80.
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. (Pubitemid 44356442)