Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:17:18.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Informed Consent Have an Expiry Date? A Critical Reappraisal of Informed Consent as a Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2011

GERT HELGESSON  and
STEFAN ERIKSSON
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Informed consent is central to modern research ethics. Informed consent procedures have mainly been justified in terms of respect for autonomy, the core idea being that it should be every competent individual’s right to decide for herself whether or not to participate in scientific studies. A number of conditions are normally raised with regard to morally valid informed consent. These include that potential research subjects get adequate information, understand those aspects that are relevant to them, and, based on that information, make a voluntary decision whether or not to participate. These conditions are meant to guarantee that participation is genuinely the individual’s own choice and is coherent with his or her authentic interests.

Type
Special Section: Open Forum
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 85 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Faden, RR, Beauchamp, TL. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986Google Scholar.

2. Beauchamp, T, Childress, J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics (6th ed). New York: Oxford University Press; 2009Google Scholar; Brock, D. Informed consent. In Brock, D. Life and Death. Philosophical Essays in Biomedical Ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1993:21–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kihlbom, U. Autonomy and negatively informed consent. Journal of Medical Ethics 2008;34:146–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Laurie, G. Genetic Privacy: A Challenge to Medico-legal Norms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. See note 2, Beauchamp, Childress 2009 and Kihlbom 2008.

4. Wendler, D, Rackoff, J. Consent for continuing research participation: What is it and when should it be obtained? IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2002;24(3):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see note 2, Kihlbom 2008.

5. Helgesson, G, Johnsson, L. The right to withdraw consent to research on biobank samples. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2005;8:315–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. The 59th General Assembly, Seoul, October 2008; see note 2, Beauchamp, Childress 2009; see note 4, Wendler, Rackoff 2002.

6. Geller, G, Strauss, M, Bernhard, BA, Holtzman, NA. Decoding informed consent: Insights from women regarding cancer susceptibility testing. Hastings Center Report 1997;27(2):28–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Kuczewski, MG, Marshall, P. The decision dynamics of clinical research; the context and process of informed consent. Medical Care 2002;40(Suppl):V45–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Getz, KA. Informed consent process: A survey of subjects assesses strengths and weaknesses. Applied Clinical Trials 2002;11:30–6Google Scholar; see note 4, Wendler, Rackoff 2002.

7. Prentice, KJ, Appelbaum, PS, Conley, RR, Carpenter, WT. Maintaining informed consent validity during lengthy research protocols. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2007;29(6):1–6Google ScholarPubMed; see note 4, Wendler, Rackoff 2002; see note 6, Geller et al. 1997.

8. See note 4, Wendler, Rackoff 2002:5.

9. See note 4, Wendler, Rackoff 2002; see note 6, Geller et al. 1997.

10. Eriksson, S, Helgesson, G. Keep people informed or leave them alone? A suggested tool for identifying research participants who rightly want only limited information. Journal of Medical Ethics 2005;31:674–78CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; see note 4, Wendler, Rackoff 2002.

11. See note 4, Wendler, Rackoff 2002.

12. See note 4, Wendler, Rackoff 2002:4.

13. See note 4, Wendler, Rackoff 2002.

14. See note 4, Wendler, Rackoff 2002:4–5.

15. See note 4, Wendler, Rackoff 2002.

16. See note 4, Wendler, Rackoff 2002.

17. See note 7, Prentice et al. 2007:2.

18. See note 7, Prentice et al. 2007:1.

19. See note 10, Eriksson, Helgesson 2005.

20. The issue of whether or not to report research results back to research subjects is complicated. It seems reasonable in some kinds of studies and not so in others. We cannot discuss this in detail here, but suggest the following general principle: If research is conducted in a clinical setting, then participating patients will most likely perceive research as part of clinical procedures (which, in a sense, it is). In such situations, research results should be reported back if they can be expected to be relevant to the treatment and care of the patient. If research is not conducted in a clinical setting, as when research is carried out on previously collected biobank samples, then results should not be reported back. Exceptions to the latter principle should be considered if consequences otherwise would be dire to those concerned. In principle, research and treatment of patients are different activities and should be treated as such when research subjects could be expected to perceive the difference (the last condition is important for the sake of people’s trust in both research and healthcare).

21. See note 4, Wendler, Rackoff 2002.

22. Allmark, P, Mason, S. Improving the quality of consent to randomised controlled trials by using continuous consent and clinician training in the consent process. Journal of Medical Ethics 2006;32:439–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

23. See note 7, Prentice et al. 2007:2.

24. See note 7, Prentice et al. 2007:3.

25. Swartling, U, Helgesson, G. Self-assessed understanding as a tool for evaluating consent: Reflections on a longitudinal study. Journal of Medical Ethics 2008;34:557–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; see note 10, Eriksson, Helgesson 2005.

26. Chamot, E, Charvet, AI, Perneger, TV. Variability in women’s desire for information about mammography screening: Implications for informed consent. European Journal of Cancer Prevention 2005;14:413–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; O’Neill, O. Some limits of informed consent. Journal of Medical Ethics 2003;29:4–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; see note 10, Eriksson, Helgesson 2005; see note 25, Swartling, Helgesson 2008.