The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Some limits of informed consent
Open accessAbstract
Many accounts of informed consent in medical ethics claim that it is valuable because it supports individual autonomy. Unfortunately there are many distinct conceptions of individual autonomy, and their ethical importance varies. A better reason for taking informed consent seriously is that it provides assurance that patients and others are neither deceived nor coerced. Present debates about the relative importance of generic and specific consent (particularly in the use of human tissues for research and in secondary studies) do not address this issue squarely. Consent is a propositional attitude, so intransitive: complete, wholly specific consent is an illusion. Since the point of consent procedures is to limit deception and coercion, they should be designed to give patients and others control over the amount of information they receive and opportunity to rescind consent already given.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A history and theory of informed consent
Kapp, M. B. (1986) · Journal of Legal Medicine · doi:10.1080/01947648609513478 · Cited by 2,331
The Theory and Practice of Autonomy
Dworkin, G. (1988) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511625206 · Cited by 2,018
Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics
O'Neill, O. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511606250 · Cited by 1,202
Self-citationThe Theory and Practice of Autonomy.
Ekstrom, L. W., & Dworkin, G. (1993) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2185696 · Cited by 1,119
Autonomy and trust in bioethics
(2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-4540 · Cited by 900
Strangers at the bedside: a history of how law and bioethics transformed medical decision making
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-0348 · Cited by 551
Human tissue: ethical and legal issues
McLean, S. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.310.6992.1423 · Cited by 106
Cited by
An Ethical Framework for Evaluating Experimental Technology
van de Poel, I. (2016) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9724-3 · Cited by 143
Direct-to-consumer genomics on the scales of autonomy
Vayena, E. (2015) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/medethics-2014-102026 · Cited by 62
Woolley, J. P. (2019) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-017-0288-9 · Cited by 10
Informed Consent, Error and Suspending Ignorance: Providing Knowledge or Preventing Error?
Keren, A., & Lev, O. (2022) · Ethical Theory and Moral Practice · doi:10.1007/s10677-022-10277-w · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- O'Neill, O.
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Ethics
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2003-02
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 4-7
- ISSN
- 0306-6800 (ISSN-L)
- 1473-4257
- OpenAlex
- W2150225237
- Cited by
- 499
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 16.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Some limits of informed consent. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jme.29.1.4
- The paper
- O'Neill, O. (2003). Some limits of informed consent. Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.29.1.4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.