NanoEthics 10 (2):123-138 (2016)

Neelke Doorn
Delft University of Technology
In recent years, informed consent has been suggested as a way to deal with risks posed by engineered nanomaterials. We argue that while we can learn from experiences with informed consent in treatment and research contexts, we should be aware that informed consent traditionally pertains to certain features of the relationships between doctors and patients and researchers and research participants, rather than those between producers and consumers and employers and employees, which are more prominent in the case of engineered nanomaterials. To better understand these differences, we identify three major relational factors that influence whether valid informed consent is obtainable, namely dependency, personal proximity, and existence of shared interests. We show that each type of relationship offers different opportunities for reflection and therefore poses distinct challenges for obtaining valid informed consent. Our analysis offers a systematic understanding of the possibilities for attaining informed consent in the context of nanomaterial risks and makes clear that measures or regulations to improve the obtainment of informed consent should be attuned to the specific interpersonal relations to which it is supposed to apply.
Keywords Informed consent  Nanomaterial risks  Relational autonomy  Room for reflection  Interpersonal relationships
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11569-016-0262-5
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 59,687
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

Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics.Neil C. Manson - 2007 - Cambridge University Press.
The Law of Group Polarization.Cass R. Sunstein - 2002 - Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2):175–195.

View all 25 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Informed Consent and Routinisation.Thomas Ploug & Soren Holm - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (4):214-218.
Consent and Informational Responsibility.Shaun D. Pattinson - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (3):176-179.
Informed Consent and Relational Conceptions of Autonomy.N. Stoljar - 2011 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (4):375-384.
Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics.Neil C. Manson - 2007 - Cambridge University Press.
Autonomy, Consent and the Law.Sheila McLean - 2010 - Routledge-Cavendish.


Added to PP index

Total views
24 ( #442,874 of 2,432,285 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #295,372 of 2,432,285 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes