CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 80Ethics in Clinical ResearchEthics and bioethics in healthcareMedical and Health Sciences Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

In Defense of Broad Consent

HELGESSON, GERT·2012·Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
DOI 10.1017/s096318011100048x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Proper procedures for informed consent are widely recognized as an ethical requirement for biomedical research involving human beings, in particular as a means to respect the autonomy and personal integrity of potential and actual research participants.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s096318011100048x

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

  • With regard to the collection of biospecimens specifically for research, the ethical acceptability of broad consent for future unspecified use has long been discussed, but surveys suggest that it is now common in the United States and possibly other countries.

    “With regard to the collection of biospecimens specifically for research, the ethical acceptability of broad consent for future unspecified use has long been discussed (21, 52, 54, 61, 75, 109), but surveys suggest that it is now common in the United States (57) and possibly other countries (40, 109).”

    From Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens (2016) · cites this paper as [54]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Rubin, 2010, Havasupai tribe win nice settlement from ASU in scandalous blood-sample case, Phoenix New Times
  2. Dillner, 1994, A population-based seroepidemiological study of cervical cancer, Cancer Research, 54, 134
  3. 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201458 · DOI
  4. Faden, 1986, A History and Theory of Informed Consent
  5. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.004 · DOI
  6. 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00377.x · DOI
  7. 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2005.tb00205.x · DOI
  8. 10.1038/sj.embor.7400740 · DOI
  9. Beauchamp, 2009, Principles of Biomedical Ethics
  10. 10.1183/09031936.00165006 · DOI
  11. 10.1080/09615768.2007.11427674 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Harmon, 2010, Where’d you go with my DNA, The New York Times
  13. Haga, 2008, Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetic research, Advances in Genetics, 60, 505, 10.1016/S0065-2660(07)00418-X · DOI
  14. 10.1038/nbt0505-539 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70618-0 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Harmon, 2010, Indian tribe wins fight to limit research of its DNA, The New York Times
  17. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600454 · DOI
  18. 10.1136/jme.2005.012013 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.shpsc.2006.06.007 · DOI
  20. 10.1136/jme.2008.024851 · DOI
  21. Harmon, 2010, Havasupai case highlights risks in DNA research, The New York Times
  22. Elger, 2008, Ethical Issues in Governing Biobanks: Global Perspectives, 57
  23. 10.1038/nbt0506-496 · DOI
  24. 10.1038/nbt0908-979b · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
HELGESSON, G.
Affiliations
Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
HELGESSON, GERT
ORCID
HELGESSON, GERT
Venue
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2011-12-13
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
40-50
ISSN
  • 0963-1801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-2147
DOI
10.1017/s096318011100048x
OpenAlex
W2324281291
Cited by
80
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
5.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Law › Medical and Health Sciences Research
Keywords
broad consent, informed consent, research ethics, human subjects research, participant autonomy, personal integrity, research participant protection
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Forecasting, Humans, Indians, North American, Informed Consent, Risk, Tissue Banks, United States, Personal Autonomy, Ethics Committees, Research, Comprehension, Ethics, Research, Information Dissemination, Trust, Research Subjects, Genetic Research

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