Cited by 436Ethics in Clinical ResearchEthics and bioethics in healthcareMedical and Health Sciences Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Empty ethics: the problem with informed consent

Open access
Corrigan, Oonagh·2003·Sociology of Health & Illness

Abstract

Abstract Informed consent is increasingly heralded as an ethical panacea, a tool to counter autocratic and paternalistic medical practices. Debate about the implementation of informed consent is constricted and polarised, centring on the right of individuals to be fully informed and to freely choose versus an autocratic, paternalistic practice that negates individual choice. A bioethical framework, based on a principle‐led form of reductive/deductive reasoning, dominates the current model of informed consent. Such a model tends to abstract the process of consent from its clinical and social setting. By fleshing out the social process involved when patients and healthy volunteer subjects consent to take part in clinical drug trials, this paper attempts to address the problem arising from the current ‘empty ethics’ model. My arguments are substantiated by qualitative interview data drawn from a study I conducted on the process of consent as experienced by participants in clinical drug trials.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1467-9566.2003.00369.x

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 0 references

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Annas G., 1992, The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code, 10.1093/oso/9780195070422.001.0001 · DOI
  2. Beauchamp T., L, 1989, Principles of Biomedical Ethics
  3. 10.4324/9780203393000 · DOI
  4. Blaxter M., 1996, Lay Beliefs about Drugs and Medicines and the Implications for Community Pharmacy
  5. Britten N., 1996, Modern Medicine: Lay Perspectives and Experiences
  6. Calnan M., 1987, Health and Illness: the Lay Perspective
  7. CERES (Consumers for Ethics in Research), 1999, CERES News, CERES, 24
  8. 10.1136/bmj.316.7136.1000 · DOI
  9. Dresser R., 2001, When Science Offers Salvation: Patient Advocacy and Research Ethics, 10.1093/oso/9780195143133.001.0001 · DOI
  10. Estey A., 1994, Are research subjects able to retain the information they are given during the consent process, Health Law Review, 3, 37
  11. Giddens A., 1990, The Consequences of Modernity
  12. Giddens A., 1992, Modernity and Self‐Identity
  13. ICH (International Conference for Harmonisation), 1998, Manual For Research Ethics Committees
  14. 10.1016/0197-2456(81)90019-2 · DOI
  15. Light D., 1998, Bioethics and Society
  16. Mueller M., 1997, The Sociology of Medical Science and Technology
  17. Pappworth M., 1967, Human Guinea Pigs
  18. Rose N., 1989, Governing the Soul
  19. Rose N., 1996, Foucault and Political Reason
  20. 10.1017/CBO9780511488856 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/S0197-2456(98)00049-X · DOI
  22. Spink J.D., 1980, Risk and Regulation in Medicine
  23. Sugarman J. McCrory D.C. Powell D.(1999)Empirical research on informed consent: an annotated bibliography A Hastings Center Report Special Supplement. · DOI
  24. Tobias J., 1998, Changing the British Medical Journal's position on informed consent would be counterproductive, British Medical Journal, 316, 1001
  25. Warnock M., 1998, Informed consent – a publisher's duty, British Medical Journal, 316, 1002
  26. Williams S.J., 1996, Modern Medicine: Lay Perspectives and Experiences
  27. Wolpe P., 1998, Bioethics and Society

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 350

Metadata

Authors
Corrigan, O.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Corrigan, Oonagh
Venue
Sociology of Health & Illness
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-11
Volume
25
Issue
7
Pages
768-792
ISSN
  • 0141-9889 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9566
OpenAlex
W2061123320
Cited by
436
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 21
FWCI
15.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sociology of Health & Illness (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health
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
informed consent, clinical drug trials, patient consent, paternalism, individual choice, bioethical principles, healthy volunteers, clinical ethics
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Choice Behavior, Clinical Trials as Topic, Decision Making, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Informed Consent, Interviews as Topic, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Perception, Drugs, Investigational, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Personal Autonomy, Bioethical Issues, Ethics, Clinical, Paternalism, Principle-Based Ethics, Ethics, Research, Narration, Biomedical 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