Journal of Moral Philosophy 10 (4):195-219 (2013)

Authors
Danielle Bromwich
University of Massachusetts, Boston
Joseph Millum
National Institutes of Health
Abstract
Most regulations and guidelines require that potential research participants be told a great deal of information during the consent process. Many of these documents, and most of the scholars who consider the consent process, assume that all this information must be disclosed because it must all be understood. However, a wide range of studies surveying apparently competent participants in clinical trials around the world show that many do not understand key aspects of what they have been told. The standard view of the conditions for valid consent therefore implies that these people have failed to give valid consent to research participation. In this paper we argue that the standard view is false. The primary function of the requirement that researchers disclose information about a study is the avoidance of illegitimate control over someone’s consent decision, which is a form of fraud.We derive the content and manner of appropriate disclosure by analysing the ways in which the manipulation of information can invalidate consent. Our analysis shows that the informational requirements for valid consent are conceptually distinct and thus unlikely to have identical contents. This implies that consent can be valid when not everything that ought to be disclosed by the person asking for consent is understood by the person who proffers it
Keywords Consent  Disclosure  Fraud  Feinberg  Medical Research  Autonomy  Rights  Deception  Control
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1163/17455243-4681027
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Upload history
External links

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

Well-Being.Roger Crisp - 2013 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Well-Being.Roger Crisp - 2017 - In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
The Many Faces of Competency.James F. Drane - 1985 - Hastings Center Report 15 (2):17-21.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Understanding, Communication, and Consent.Joseph Millum & Danielle Bromwich - 2018 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 5:45-68.
Can Informed Consent to Research Be Adapted to Risk?Danielle Bromwich & Annette Rid - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (7):521-528.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Can Informed Consent to Research Be Adapted to Risk?Danielle Bromwich & Annette Rid - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (7):521-528.
A Puzzle About Consent in Research and in Practice.Eric Chwang - 2010 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 27 (3):258-272.
Consent and Informational Responsibility.Shaun D. Pattinson - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (3):176-179.
Autonomy, Consent and the Law.Sheila McLean - 2010 - Routledge-Cavendish.
Emergency Research Without Consent Under Polish Law.Joanna Różyńska & Marek Czarkowski - 2007 - Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (3):337-350.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-04-26

Total views
461 ( #12,630 of 2,331,387 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
53 ( #10,609 of 2,331,387 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes