Cited by 61Ethics in Clinical ResearchEthics and bioethics in healthcareBiomedical Ethics and Regulation

Is Informed Consent Broken?

Henderson, Gail E.·2011·The American Journal of the Medical Sciences

Abstract

For as long as the federal regulations governing human subjects research have existed, the practice of informed consent has been attacked as culturally biased, legalistic, ritualistic and unevenly enforced. Its focus on meeting the regulatory requirements is seen as undermining a truly ethical process that produces informed and voluntary participation in medical research. Recent changes in the clinical translational research enterprise, with large scale genomic and other data sharing made possible by advanced bioinformatic technologies, may further challenge this goal. Study participants are asked to consent to future studies with unspecified aims, broad data sharing policies and ongoing uncertainties regarding confidentiality protections and the potential benefit of incidental genomic research findings. Because more research is conducted under these new conditions, the very nature of the researcher-subject relationship is shifting and will require new governance mechanisms to promote the original goals of informed consent.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/maj.0b013e31822a6c47

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • There is a chasm between the theoretical ideals of informed consent and what it accomplishes in actual practice.

    “There is a chasm between the theoretical ideals of informed consent and what it accomplishes in actual practice (46, 53, 55).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Henderson, G. E.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Henderson, Gail E.
Venue
The American Journal of the Medical Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-10
Volume
342
Issue
4
Pages
267-272
ISSN
0002-9629 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2005472350
Cited by
61
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Journal of the Medical Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Human Genome Research Institute (P50HG004488, R01HG002087, R01 HG02087)
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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
Keywords
informed consent, human subjects research, research ethics, clinical and translational research, genomic data sharing, incidental finding, confidentiality, researcher-subject relationship, research governance, federal research regulations, voluntary participation
MeSH terms
Humans, Informed Consent, Genomics, Bioethical Issues, Harm Reduction, Translational Research, Biomedical

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