Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 799–816 | Cite as

Consent for Data on Consent



There are instances where the provider of an intervention, such as surgery, has failed to obtain necessary informed consent from the recipient of the intervention. Perhaps the surgeon has failed to warn the patient that she may go into a coma, or even be killed, from the surgery. Sometimes, as a result of this intervention, the recipient cannot give informed consent to researchers for the release of their personal data precisely because of the intervention. If they are in a coma, they cannot be reached. Sometimes, this personal data itself can prove that the provider of the intervention failed to obtain informed consent for the intervention. For example, a personal file may include a consent form that does not include warnings about the risk of falling into a coma from the surgery. Paradoxically, those who cannot give informed consent for the disclosure of their personal data on an intervention may have been especially ill-informed about the repercussions of the intervention. In such instances, should researchers ever use the data and disclose the data in their research? In an attempt to demonstrate when this dilemma may be relevant, and how it may be solved, I will present a real-world case of this dilemma in my own empirical research on refugees who agreed to repatriate to their countries of origin from Israel. I will consider what theories on consent, if any, can help us resolve this dilemma.


Informed consent Data disclosure Right to privacy Immigration Refugees 


  1. Arneson RJ (1994) Autonomy and Preference Formation. In: Coleman J, Buchanan A (eds) In harms way: essays in honor of Joel Feinberg. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2009) Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergelson V (2013) Consent to Harm. In: Miller F, Wertheimer A (eds) The ethics of consent: theory and practice. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Berman Y (2011) Until our hearts are completely hardened: Asylum procedures in Israel. Hotline for Migrant WorkersGoogle Scholar
  5. Cantor N (2005) The bane of surrogate decision-making: defining the best interests of never-competent persons. J Legal Med 26(2):155–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen S (2013) Nudging and informed consent. Am J Bioeth 13(6):3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cushman R, Froomkin AM, Cava A, Abril P, Goodman KW (2010) Ethical, legal and social issues for personal health records and applications. J Biomed Inform 43(5):S51–S55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dolan B (2004) Medical records: disclosing confidential clinical information. Psychiatr Bull 28:53–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Groll D (2012) Paternalism, respect, and the will author. Ethics 122(4):692–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. IOM Glossary on Migration, 2004, p. 34Google Scholar
  11. Little M (2009) The role of regret in informed consent. Bioeth Inq 6:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maxwell D, Gelsdorf K, Santschi M (2012) Livelihoods, Basic Services, and Social Protection in South Sudan. Working Paper 1. Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium. Feinstein International CentreGoogle Scholar
  13. Miller FD (2013) Consent to clinical research. In (ed.) F. Miller and A. Wertheimer ibidGoogle Scholar
  14. Millum CJ (2014) Consent under pressure: the puzzle of third party coercion. Ethical Theor Moral Prac 17(1):113–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. O’Neill O (2002) Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Parfit D (2011) On what matters. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Richards JR (2013) Consent With Inducements: The Case of Body Parts and Services. In: Miller F, Wertheimer A (eds) The ethics of consent: theory and practice. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Schonfeld T, Brown JS, Amoura NJ, Gordon B (2011) You don’t know me, but…: Access to patient data and subject recruitment in human subject research. Am J Bioeth 11(11):31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schwab AP, Frank L, Gligorov N (2011) Saying privacy, meaning confidentiality. Am J Bioeth 11(11):44–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sen A (1987) The Standard Living: Lecture I, Concepts and Critiques’. In: Sen A, Muellbaur J, Kanbur R, Hart K, Williams B, Hawthorn G (eds) The standard of living. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. UNHCR ‘Displacement in the 20th Century Challenge’ in UNHCR Global Trends 2012 available at

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LondonUK

Personalised recommendations