Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1) (1995)
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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Should Desperate Volunteers Be Included in Randomised Controlled Trials?P. Allmark - 2006 - Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (9):548-553.
Informed Consent and the Use of Placebo in Poland: Ethical and Legal Aspects.Piotr Zaborowski & Adam Górski - 2004 - Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (1):167-178.
An Argument That All Prerandomized Clinical Trials Are Unethical.Don Marquis - 1986 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 11 (4):367-383.
The Limits of Consent: A Socio-Ethical Approach to Human Subject Research in Medicine.Oonagh Corrigan (ed.) - 2009 - Oxford University Press.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads13 ( #355,522 of 2,172,870 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #324,901 of 2,172,870 )
How can I increase my downloads?