Cited by 800Ethics and bioethics in healthcareEthics in Clinical ResearchMedical and Health Sciences Research

Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics

Manson, Neil C., O'Neill, Onora·2007·Cambridge University Press eBooks

Abstract

Informed consent is a central topic in contemporary biomedical ethics. Yet attempts to set defensible and feasible standards for consenting have led to persistent difficulties. In Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics, first published in 2007, Neil Manson and Onora O'Neill set debates about informed consent in medicine and research in a fresh light. They show why informed consent cannot be fully specific or fully explicit, and why more specific consent is not always ethically better. They argue that consent needs distinctive communicative transactions, by which other obligations, prohibitions, and rights can be waived or set aside in controlled and specific ways. Their book offers a coherent, wide-ranging and practical account of the role of consent in biomedicine which will be valuable to readers working in a range of areas in bioethics, medicine and law.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9780511814600

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Manson and O'Neill argue that more specific consent is not always ethically better and is difficult to achieve in practice; consent requires unique communicative transactions.

    “Manson and O’Neill [87] argue that more specific consent is not always ethically better and is difficult to achieve in practice. Consent requires unique communicative transactions.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Manson, N. C., & O'Neill, O.
Affiliations
Lancaster University (GB)
Venue
Cambridge University Press eBooks
Published
2007-03-29
OpenAlex
W189803326
Cited by
800
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 51
FWCI
40.62
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical and Health Sciences Research
Keywords
informed consent, biomedical ethics, medical research ethics, waiver of rights, explicit consent, bioethics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review