Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1) (1995)
|Abstract||This essay explores some concerns about the quality of informed consent in patients whose autonomy is diminished by fatal illness. It argues that patients with diminished autonomy cannot give free and voluntary consent, and that recruitment of such patients as subjects in human experimentation exploits their vulnerability in a morally objectionable way. Two options are given to overcome this objection: (i) recruit only those patients who desire to contribute to medical knowledge, rather than gain access to experimental treatment, or (ii) provide prospective subjects the choice to participate in standard doubleblind study or receive the experimental treatment. Either option would guarantee that patients in desperate conditions are given a more meaningful choice and a richer freedom, and thus a higher quality of informed consent, than under standard randomized trials. Keywords: autonomy, double-blind trials, prerandomized and randomized trials, informed consent CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gary B. Weiss (1984). Patient Truthfulness: A Test of Models of the Physician-Patient Relationship. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (4):353-372.
P. Allmark (2006). Should Desperate Volunteers Be Included in Randomised Controlled Trials? Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (9):548-553.
Piotr Zaborowski & Adam Górski (2004). Informed Consent and the Use of Placebo in Poland: Ethical and Legal Aspects. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (1).
Sheila McLean (2010). Autonomy, Consent and the Law. Routledge-Cavendish.
Don Marquis (1986). An Argument That All Prerandomized Clinical Trials Are Unethical. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 11 (4):367-383.
Oonagh Corrigan (ed.) (2009). The Limits of Consent: A Socio-Ethical Approach to Human Subject Research in Medicine. Oxford University Press.
Jeremy Howick, Against a Priori Judgements of Bad Methodology: Questioning Double-Blinding as a Universal Methodological Virtue of Clinical Trials.
Stephen Wear (1995). A Desperate Solution: Individual Autonomy and the Double-Blind Controlled Experiment. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1):57-64.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads1 ( #292,081 of 739,304 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,304 )
How can I increase my downloads?