Bioethics 22 (4):203–208 (2008)
To give valid informed consent to participate in clinical research, potential participants should understand the risks, potential benefits, procedures, and alternatives. Potential participants also should understand that they are being invited to participate in research. Yet it is unclear what potential participants need to understand to satisfy this particular requirement. As a result, it is unclear what additional information investigators should disclose about the research; and it is also unclear when failures of understanding in this respect undermine the validity of potential participants' informed consent. An analysis of individuals' interests suggests that potential participants need to understand three additional facts to understand that they are being invited to participate in research: 1) research contribution: those who enroll in the study will be contributing to a project designed to gather generalizable knowledge to benefit others in the future; 2) research relationship: the investigators will rely on participants' efforts to gather the generalizable knowledge to benefit others; and 3) research impact: the extent to which participating in the study will alter what participants do and what happens to them.
|Keywords||clinical research informed consent participation|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
False Hopes and Best Data: Consent to Research and the Therapeutic Misconception.Paul S. Appelbaum, Loren H. Roth, Charles W. Lidz, Paul Benson & William Winslade - 1987 - Hastings Center Report 17 (2):20-24.
What Research with Stored Samples Teaches Us About Research with Human Subjects.David Wendler - 2002 - Bioethics 16 (1):33–54.
Informed Consent and Collaborative Research: Perspectives From the Developing World.Adnan A. Hyder & Salman A. Wali - 2006 - Developing World Bioethics 6 (1):33–40.
Citations of this work BETA
Reassessing the Role of the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee.Merryn Ekberg - 2012 - Journal of Academic Ethics 10 (4):335-352.
Cancer Clinical Trial Participants' Assessment of Risk and Benefit.Connie M. Ulrich, Sarah J. Ratcliffe, Gwenyth R. Wallen, Qiuping Zhou, Kathleen Knafl & Christine Grady - 2016 - Ajob Empirical Bioethics 7 (1):8-16.
Both Sides of the Coin: Randomization From the Perspectives of Physician-Investigators and Patient-Subjects.Eric D. Kodish, Kathleen A. Kassimatis & Tsiao Yi Yap - 2010 - Ethics and Behavior 20 (5):380-386.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Must Research Participants Understand Randomization?”.David Wendler - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2):W1 – W2.
Similar books and articles
Are Research Participants Truly Informed? Readability of Informed Consent Forms Used in Research.James R. P. Ogloff & Randy K. Otto - 1991 - Ethics and Behavior 1 (4):239 – 252.
Using the Cables Model to Assess and Minimize Risk in Research: Control Group Hazards.Gerald P. Koocher - 2002 - Ethics and Behavior 12 (1):75 – 86.
Lessons From Everyday Lives: A Moral Justification for Acute Care Research.Andrew D. McRae & Charles Weijer - unknown
Disclosure of Research Result to Research Participants: Needs and Attitudes of Adolescents and Parents.Conrad Vincent Fernandez, Shaureen Taweel, Eric D. Kodish & Charles Weijer - unknown
Do Undergraduate Student Research Participants Read Psychological Research Consent Forms? Examining Memory Effects, Condition Effects, and Individual Differences.Eric R. Pedersen, Clayton Neighbors, Judy Tidwell & Ty W. Lostutter - 2011 - Ethics and Behavior 21 (4):332 - 350.
Participants' Perceptions of Research Benefits in an African Genetic Epidemiology Study.John Appiah-Poku, Sam Newton & Nancy Kass - 2011 - Developing World Bioethics 11 (3):128-135.
Neuropsychological Functioning and Recall of Research Consent Information Among Drug Court Clients.David S. Festinger, Kattiya Ratanadilok, Douglas B. Marlowe, Karen L. Dugosh, Nicholas S. Patapis & David S. DeMatteo - 2007 - Ethics and Behavior 17 (2):163 – 186.
Codes of Ethics Among Corporate Research Departments, Marketing Research Firms, and Data Subcontractors: An Examination of a Three-Communities Metaphor. [REVIEW]O. C. Ferrell, Michael D. Hartline & Stephen W. McDaniel - 1998 - Journal of Business Ethics 17 (5):49-62.
Must Research Participants Understand Randomization?David Wendler - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2):3 – 8.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads33 ( #154,849 of 2,164,583 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #347,948 of 2,164,583 )
How can I increase my downloads?