Without informed consent

International Journal of Technoethics

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 48-61

  Belfrage, Sara ^a  

^a ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Advance Directive; Debriefing; Informed Consent; Proxy Consent; Research Ethics

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864550582     PISSN: 19473451     EISSN: 1947346X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jte.2011070104     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2. Broström, L., Johansson, M., & Klemme Nielsen, M. (2007). 'What the patient would have decided': A fundamental problem with the substituted judgment standard. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 10, 265-278. doi:10.1007/s11019-006-9042-2
3. Brown, P. G. (1975). Informed consent in social experimentation: Some cautionary notes. In Rivlin, A. M., & Timpane, P. M. (Eds.), Ethical and legal issues of social experimentation (pp. 79-104). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
4. Buchanan, A. E., & Brock, D. W. (1989). Deciding for others: The ethics of surrogate decision making. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5. Capron, A. (1982). The authority of others to decide about biomedical interventions with incompetents. In W. Gaylin & R. Macklin (Eds.), Who speaks for the child? (pp. 115-152). Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: The Hastings Center.
6. Dawson, A. (2004). What should we do about it? Implications of the empirical evidence in relation to comprehension and acceptability of randomisation. In Holm, S., & Jonas, M. (Eds.), Engaging the world: The use of empirical research in bioethics and the regulation of biotechnology. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
7. Dennis, M. (1997). Commentary: Why we didn't ask patients for their consent. British Medical Journal, 314, 1077.
8. Dickert, N. W., & Sugarman, J. (2006). Community consultation: Not the problem-an important part of the solution. The American Journal of Bioethics, 6(3), 26-28. doi:10.1080/15265160600685762 (Pubitemid 43879595)
9. Dworkin, G. (1988). The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10. Elks, M. L. (1993). The right to participate in research studies. The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 122(2), 130-136. (Pubitemid 23239142)
11. Faden, R. R., Beauchamp, T. L., & King, N. M. P. (1986). A history and theory of informed consent. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12. Feinberg, J. (1986). The moral limits of the criminal law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13. Foex, B. A. (2001). The problem of informed consent in emergency medicine research. Emergency Medicine Journal, 18(3), 198-204. doi:10.1136/ emj.18.3.198 (Pubitemid 34070896)
14. Fost, N. (1998). Waived consent for emergency research. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 24(2-3), 163-183. (Pubitemid 28374131)
15. Greenberg, D., Shroder, M., & Onstott, M. (1999). The social experiment market. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(3), 157-172. doi:10.1257/ jep.13.3.157
16. Hansson, M., Dillner, J., Bartram, C. R., Carlson, J. A., & Helgesson, G. (2006). Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? The Lancet Oncology, 7, 266-269. doi:10.1016/ S1470-2045(06)70618-0 (Pubitemid 43286456)
17. Hansson, S. O. (2004). The ethics of biobanks. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 13, 319-326. doi:10.1017/S0963180104134038 (Pubitemid 39420945)
18. Hansson, S. O. (2006). Informed consent out of context. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 149-154. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-2584-z (Pubitemid 43022929)
19. Hayry, M., & Takala, T. (2001). Genetic information, rights, and autonomy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 22(5), 403-414. doi:10.1023/A:1013097617552 (Pubitemid 34036705)
20. Helgesson, G., & Johnsson, L. (2005). The right to withdraw consent to research on biobank samples. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 8, 315-321. doi:10.1007/s11019-005-0397-6 (Pubitemid 41829749)
21. Jones, S., Davies, K., & Jones, B. (2005). The adult patient, informed consent and the emergency care setting. Accident and Emergency Nursing, 13(3), 167-170. doi:10.1016/j.aaen.2005.05.005 (Pubitemid 41080568)
22. King, N. M. P. (1999). Medical research: Using a new paradigm where the old might do. In King, N. M. P., & Henderson, G. E. (Eds.), Beyond regulations: Ethics in human subjects research. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
23. Kraybill, E. N., & Bauer, B. S. (1999). Can community consultation substitute for informed consent in emergency medicine research? In King, N. M. P., & Henderson, G. E. (Eds.), Beyond regulations: Ethics in human subjects research. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
24. Lindley, R. I. (1998). Thrombolytic treatment for acute ischaemic stroke: Consent can be ethical. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 316(7136), 1005-1007. (Pubitemid 28135159)
25. Marshall, P. A., & Berg, J. W. (2006). Protecting communities in biomedical research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 6(3), 28-30. doi:10.1080/15265160600685770
26. Martin, M. W., & Schinzinger, R. (1989). Ethics in engineering (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
27. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 67, 371-378. doi:10.1037/h0040525
28. O'Neill, O. (2003). Some limits of informed consent. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 4-7. doi:10.1136/ jme.29.1.4
29. Palmer, R. B., & Iserson, K. V. (1997). The critical patient who refuses treatment: An ethical dilemma. Ethics of Emergency Medicine, 5(5), 729-733. (Pubitemid 27449457)
30. Schultze, C. L. (1975). Social programs and social experiments. In Rivlin, A. M., & Timpane, P. M. (Eds.), Ethical and legal issues of social experimentation (pp. 115-125). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
31. Schwab, A. P. (2006). Formal and effective autonomy in healthcare. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(10), 575-579. doi:10.1136/jme.2005.013391 (Pubitemid 44560470)
32. Svensson, S., & Hansson, S. O. (2007). Protecting people in research: A comparison between biomedical and traffic research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 99-115.
33. United States National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (1998). Research involving persons with mental disorders that may affect decisionmaking capacity. Retrieved from http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/ nbac/pubs.html
34. United States National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Bethesda, MD: United States National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.