David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Standard versions of the requirement of informed consent state that patients who are offered to enter a clinical trial of a medical procedure should be informed about risks and possible benefits of this procedure (compared to available alternatives) in order to facilitate a rational decision whether or not to participate. However, in many real cases where new medical procedures are to be clinically tested for the first time the information available for such communication to prospective patients is very scarce, vague and/or uncertain. This phenomenon is illustrated by the clinical introduction of new procedures in reproductive medicine, such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Regarding such procedures, it has ben argued that, in such cases, the quality of the available information may be too low for the obtaining of informed consent to be possible, even if it is successfully communicated. Others, instead, holds that informed consent may always be obtained regardless of the quality of the available information. Unfortunately, the standard litterature on informed consent give no clue as to which of these interpretations is correct. This issue is explored by connecting the concept of informed consent to ethical ideas of respect for autonomy and ideas of rational decision making. It is argued, first, that low quality of available information regarding the risks and possible benefits of a medical procedure may indeed make the obtaining of informed consent from patients to undergo this procedure impossible even in theory. However, it is also argued that whether or not this is the case must be relativized to the actual needs and deires of individual patients. Thus, regarding one and the same procedure, informed consent may be impossible to obtain from some patients due to the low quality of the available information regarding this procedure, but still be possible to obtain from other patients.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
M. Sheehan (2011). Can Broad Consent Be Informed Consent? Public Health Ethics 4 (3):226-235.
Tom Walker (2012). Informed Consent and the Requirement to Ensure Understanding. Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (1):50-62.
Leslie Cannold (1997). "There Is No Evidence to Suggest...": Changing the Way We Judge Information for Disclosure in the Informed Consent Process. Hypatia 12 (2):165 - 184.
Dayna Bowen Matthew (2008). Race, Religion, and Informed Consent - Lessons From Social Science. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36 (1):150-173.
N. Waller Bruce (1995). Individual Autonomy and the Double-Blind Controlled Experiment: The Case of Desperate Volunteers. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1).
O. O'Neill (2001). Informed Consent and Genetic Information. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 32 (4):689-704.
Piotr Zaborowski & Adam Górski (2004). Informed Consent and the Use of Placebo in Poland: Ethical and Legal Aspects. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (1):167-178.
Shaun D. Pattinson (2009). Consent and Informational Responsibility. Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (3):176-179.
Sheila McLean (2010). Autonomy, Consent and the Law. Routledge-Cavendish.
Deborah Bowman (2011). Informed Consent: A Primer for Clinical Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads24 ( #158,638 of 1,902,201 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #466,168 of 1,902,201 )
How can I increase my downloads?