Author(s)
O'Neill, O.Keywords
AutonomyCoercion
Consent
Deception
Ethics
Medical Ethics
Patients
Research
Confidentiality
Informed Consent
Full record
Show full item recordOnline Access
http://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Some+limits+of+informed+consent&title=Journal+of+Medical+Ethics+&volume=29&issue=1&spage=4-7&date=2003-02&au=O'Neill,+O.https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.29.1.4
http://hdl.handle.net/10822/1002874
Abstract
Many accounts of informed consent in medical ethics claim that it is valuable because it supports individual autonomy. Unfortunately there are many distinct conceptions of individual autonomy, and their ethical importance varies. A better reason for taking informed consent seriously is that it provides assurance that patients and others are neither deceived nor coerced. Present debates about the relative importance of generic and specific consent (particularly in the use of human tissues for research and in secondary studies) do not address this issue squarely. Consent is a propositional attitude, so intransitive: complete, wholly specific consent is an illusion. Since the point of consent procedures is to limit deception and coercion, they should be designed to give patients and others control over the amount of information they receive and opportunity to rescind consent already given.Date
2016-01-09Identifier
oai:repository.library.georgetown.edu:10822/1002874doi:10.1136/jme.29.1.4
Journal of Medical Ethics 2003 February; 29(1): 4-7
http://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Some+limits+of+informed+consent&title=Journal+of+Medical+Ethics+&volume=29&issue=1&spage=4-7&date=2003-02&au=O'Neill,+O.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.29.1.4
http://hdl.handle.net/10822/1002874
DOI
10.1136/jme.29.1.4ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1136/jme.29.1.4