Authority and the Future of Consent in Population-Level Biomedical Research
Mark Sheehan, Rachel Thompson, Jon Fistein, Jim Davies, Michael Dunn, Michael Parker, Julian Savulescu & Kerrie Woods
Public Health Ethics (forthcoming)
Abstract
Population-level biomedical research has become crucial to the health system’s ability to improve the health of the population. This form of research raises a number of well-documented ethical concerns, perhaps the most significant of which is the inability of the researcher to obtain fully informed specific consent from participants. Two proposed technical solutions to this problem of consent in large-scale biomedical research that have become increasingly popular are meta-consent and dynamic consent. We critically examine the ethical and practical credentials of these proposals and find them lacking. We suggest that the consent problem is not solved by adopting a technology driven approach grounded in a notion of ‘specific’ consent but by taking seriously the role of research governance in combination with broader conceptions of consent. In our view, these approaches misconstrue the rightful location of authority in the way in which population-level biomedical research activities are structured and organized. We conclude by showing how and why the authority for determining the nature and shape of choice making about participation ought not to lie with individual participants, but rather with the researchers and the research governance process, and that this necessarily leads to the endorsement of a fully articulated broad consent approach.My notes
Similar books and articles
Meta Consent – A Flexible Solution to the Problem of Secondary Use of Health Data.Thomas Ploug & Søren Holm - 2016 - Bioethics 30 (9):721-732.
Are research participants truly informed? Readability of informed consent forms used in research.James R. P. Ogloff & Randy K. Otto - 1991 - Ethics and Behavior 1 (4):239 – 252.
Defining the Subject of Consent in DNA Research.Gordon R. Mitchell - 2001 - Journal of Medical Humanities 22 (1):41-53.
Reconsidering the value of consent in biobank research.Beverley Mcnamara Judy Allen - 2011 - Bioethics 25 (3):155-166.
Informed Consent in Health Research: Challenges and Barriers in Low‐and Middle‐Income Countries with Specific Reference to Nepal.R. Regmi Pramod, Aryal Nirmal, Kurmi Om, Pant Puspa Raj, Teijlingen Edwin & P. Wasti Sharada - 2017 - Developing World Bioethics 17 (2):84-89.
Biobanks--When is Re-consent Necessary?K. S. Steinsbekk & B. Solberg - 2011 - Public Health Ethics 4 (3):236-250.
Reconsidering the value of consent in biobank research.Judy Allen & Beverley Mcnamara - 2011 - Bioethics 25 (3):155-166.
Eliciting meta consent for future secondary research use of health data using a smartphone application - a proof of concept study in the Danish population.Thomas Ploug & Søren Holm - 2017 - BMC Medical Ethics 18 (1):51.
Broad consent for biobanks is best – provided it is also deep.Rasmus Bjerregaard Mikkelsen, Mickey Gjerris, Gunhild Waldemar & Peter Sandøe - 2019 - BMC Medical Ethics 20 (1):1-12.
Biobancos, cultura científica y ética de la investiación.Antonio Casado Da Rocha - 2010 - Dilemata 4.
Is Consent Based on Trust Morally Inferior to Consent Based on Information?Nana Cecilie Halmsted Kongsholm & Klemens Kappel - 2017 - Bioethics 31 (6):432-442.
Informed consent in cluster randomised trials: new and common ethical challenges.Sapfo Lignou - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (2):114-120.
Analytics
Added to PP
2019-10-31
Downloads
5 (#1,170,399)
6 months
1 (#452,962)
2019-10-31
Downloads
5 (#1,170,399)
6 months
1 (#452,962)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed?Effy Vayena, Minerva Rivas Velarde, Mahsa Shabani, Gabrielle Samuel, Camille Nebeker, S. Matthew Liao, Peter Kleist, Walter Karlen, Jeff Kahn, Phoebe Friesen, Bobbie Farsides, Edward S. Dove, Alessandro Blasimme, Mark Sheehan, Marcello Ienca & Agata Ferretti - 2021 - BMC Medical Ethics 22 (1):1-13.
Ethical Issues in Consent for the Reuse of Data in Health Data Platforms.Alex McKeown, Miranda Mourby, Paul Harrison, Sophie Walker, Mark Sheehan & Ilina Singh - 2021 - Science and Engineering Ethics 27 (1):1-21.
Building an Opt-Out Model for Service-Level Consent in the Context of New Data Regulations.A. R. Howarth, C. S. Estcourt, R. E. Ashcroft & J. A. Cassell - 2022 - Public Health Ethics 15 (2):175-180.
Better governance starts with better words: why responsible human tissue research demands a change of language.Annelien L. Bredenoord, Sarah N. Boers, Karin R. Jongsma & Michael A. Lensink - 2022 - BMC Medical Ethics 23 (1):1-10.
References found in this work
Dynamic Consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research.Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne, Harriet J. A. Teare, Jane Kaye, Stephan Beck, Heidi Beate Bentzen, Luciana Caenazzo, Clive Collett, Flavio D’Abramo, Heike Felzmann, Teresa Finlay, Muhammad Kassim Javaid, Erica Jones, Višnja Katić, Amy Simpson & Deborah Mascalzoni - 2017 - BMC Medical Ethics 18 (1):4.
Meta Consent – A Flexible Solution to the Problem of Secondary Use of Health Data.Thomas Ploug & Søren Holm - 2016 - Bioethics 30 (9):721-732.
The biobank consent debate: Why ‘meta-consent’ is not the solution?Neil C. Manson - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (5):291-294.