Abstract
Consent, at its heart, is a process—an exchange of information capped by subject agreement. The form is not the consent (Lidz et al. 1988; Davis and Hurley 2014, p. 18). Nonetheless, IRBs pragmatically use the consent form as the primary tool to determine how subjects will be informed about a study. Consent honors subjects’ right to choose and promotes their best interests as they define them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. Final report of the advisory committee on human radiation experiments. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
Amdur R, Bankert EA. Placebo-controlled trials. In: Amdur R, Bankert EA, editors. Institutional review board member handbook. 3rd ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett; 2011a. p. 171–6.
Amdur R, Bankert EA. The consent process and document. In: Amdur R, Bankert EA, editors. Institutional review board member handbook. 3rd ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett; 2011b. p. 53–8.
Baron J. Against bioethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006.
Ben-Shahar O, Schneider CE. More than you wanted to know: the failure of mandated disclosure. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2014.
Burman W, Breese P, Weis S, Bock N, Bernardo J, Vernon A, et al. The effects of local review on informed consent documents from a multicenter clinical trials consortium. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24(3):245–55.
Candilis PJ, Lidz CW. Advances in informed consent research. In: Miller FG, Wertheimer A, editors. The ethics of consent: theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. p. 329–46.
Chalmers I. Regulation of therapeutic research is compromising the interests of patients. Int J Pharm Med. 2007;21(6):395.
Davis AL, Hurley EA. Setting the stage: the past and present of human subjects research regulations. In: Cohen IG, Lynch HF, editors. Human subjects research regulation: perspectives on the future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2014. p. 9–26.
Epstein LC, Lasagna L. Obtaining informed consent: form or substance. Arch Intern Med. 1969;123(6):682.
Fost N. Consent as a barrier to research. N Engl J Med. 1979;300:1272–3.
Greene SM, Geiger AM, Harris EL, Altschuler A, Nekhlyudov L, Barton MB, et al. Impact of IRB requirements on a multicenter survey of prophylactic mastectomy outcomes. Ann Epidemiol. 2006;16(4):275–8.
Hochhauser M. Memory overload: the impossibility of informed consent. Appl Clin Trials. 2005;14(11):70.
Humphreys K, Trafton J, Wagner TH. The cost of institutional review board procedures in multicenter observational research. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(1):77.
Levine RJ. Ethics and regulation of clinical research. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Urban & Schwarzenberg; 1986.
Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS, Meisel A. Two models of implementing informed consent. Arch Intern Med. 1988;148(6):1385.
Mazur DJ. Evaluating the science and ethics of research on humans: a guide for IRB members. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2007.
Menikoff J, Richards EP. What the doctor didn’t say: the hidden truth about medical research. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
Morahan PS, Yamagata H, McDade SA, Richman R, Francis R, Odhner VC. New challenges facing interinstitutional social science and educational program evaluation research at academic health centers: a case study from the ELAM program. Acad Med. 2006;81(6):527–34.
National Cancer Institute. Consent to participate in a clinical research study: Evaluation of the natural history and management of pancreatic lesions associated with Von Hippel-Lindau. On file with author; 2011.
Penslar RL. The institutional review board’s role in editing the consent document. In: Bankert EA, Amdur RJ, editors. Institutional review board: management and function. 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett; 2006. p. 199–201.
Ramsey P. The patient as person: explorations in medical ethics. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1970.
Ravina B, Deuel L, Siderowf A, Dorsey ER. Local institutional review board (IRB) review of a multicenter trial: local costs without local context. Ann Neurol. 2010;67(2):258–60.
Smith T. Ethics in medical research: a handbook of good practice. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
Wertheimer A. Rethinking the ethics of clinical research: widening the lens. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011.
Wertheimer A, Miller FG. Payment for research participation: a coercive offer? J Med Ethics. 2008;34(5):389–92.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Whitney, S.N. (2016). Consent in Biomedical Research. In: Balanced Ethics Review. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20705-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20705-6_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20704-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20705-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)