Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Comment/debate › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Comment/debate › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - The case against meta-consent
T2 - not only do Ploug and Holm not answer it, they make it even stronger
AU - Manson, Neil
PY - 2020/8/26
Y1 - 2020/8/26
N2 - In a recent article, I argued that Ploug and Holm’s ‘meta-consent’ proposal should be rejected for biobank governance. This was because, although meta-consent is permissible, it is both burdensome and ethically omissible. There is no ethical reason why funders should undertake the additional costs. Ploug and Holm have sought to respond to these arguments. Here, it is noted that not only do they fail to adequately refuse the case against meta-consent, they fail to even engage with the arguments, either misunderstanding them or ignoring them. In their response, Ploug and Holm unwittingly provide the basis of an even stronger case against meta-consent. They argue that broad consent has a built in tendency to expire, while also holding that broad consent should be one of the options available in meta-consent. Meta-consent thus ends up being more like dynamic consent, but, arguably, even more burdensome and costly.
AB - In a recent article, I argued that Ploug and Holm’s ‘meta-consent’ proposal should be rejected for biobank governance. This was because, although meta-consent is permissible, it is both burdensome and ethically omissible. There is no ethical reason why funders should undertake the additional costs. Ploug and Holm have sought to respond to these arguments. Here, it is noted that not only do they fail to adequately refuse the case against meta-consent, they fail to even engage with the arguments, either misunderstanding them or ignoring them. In their response, Ploug and Holm unwittingly provide the basis of an even stronger case against meta-consent. They argue that broad consent has a built in tendency to expire, while also holding that broad consent should be one of the options available in meta-consent. Meta-consent thus ends up being more like dynamic consent, but, arguably, even more burdensome and costly.
KW - consent
KW - Consent for Research
KW - biobanking
U2 - 10.1136/medethics-2019-105955
DO - 10.1136/medethics-2019-105955
M3 - Comment/debate
VL - 46
SP - 627
EP - 628
JO - Journal of Medical Ethics
JF - Journal of Medical Ethics
SN - 0306-6800
IS - 9
ER -