Abstract
Empirical findings from a Swedish longitudinal screening study show that many of the research subjects had a limited understanding of the study. Nevertheless they were satisfied with the understanding they had and found it sufficient for informed continued participation. Were they wrong? In this paper, it is argued that the kind of understanding that is morally required depends partly on the kind of understanding on which the research subjects want to base their decisions, and partly on what kind of knowledge they lack. Researchers must ensure that the information process is not flawed and that participants receive the information they want. To achieve this, new information efforts may be needed. Researchers must also ensure that research subjects have knowledge about aspects of importance to them. Lack of understanding may, however, be the result of conscious choices by research subjects to disregard some of the information because it is not important to them. Such choices should normally be respected.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (63.1 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Brown R. F., Butow P. N., Butt D. G., Moore A. R., Tattersall M. H. N. Developing ethical strategies to assist oncologists in seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials. Soc Sci Med. 2004 Jan;58(2):379–390. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00204-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Daugherty C. K. Impact of therapeutic research on informed consent and the ethics of clinical trials: a medical oncology perspective. J Clin Oncol. 1999 May;17(5):1601–1617. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.5.1601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Giardiello F. M., Brensinger J. D., Petersen G. M., Luce M. C., Hylind L. M., Bacon J. A., Booker S. V., Parker R. D., Hamilton S. R. The use and interpretation of commercial APC gene testing for familial adenomatous polyposis. N Engl J Med. 1997 Mar 20;336(12):823–827. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199703203361202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gustafsson Stolt U., Ludvigsson J., Liss P. E., Svensson T. Bioethical theory and practice in genetic screening for type 1 diabetes. Med Health Care Philos. 2003;6(1):45–50. doi: 10.1023/a:1022556705853. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Joffe S., Cook E. F., Cleary P. D., Clark J. W., Weeks J. C. Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001 Jan 17;93(2):139–147. doi: 10.1093/jnci/93.2.139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Meyers Christopher. Cruel choices: autonomy and critical care decision-making. Bioethics. 2004 Apr;18(2):104–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00384.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rendtorff Jacob Dahl. Basic ethical principles in European bioethics and biolaw: autonomy, dignity, integrity and vulnerability--towards a foundation of bioethics and biolaw. Med Health Care Philos. 2002;5(3):235–244. doi: 10.1023/a:1021132602330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stiggelbout A. M., Molewijk A. C., Otten W., Timmermans D. R. M., van Bockel J. H., Kievit J. Ideals of patient autonomy in clinical decision making: a study on the development of a scale to assess patients' and physicians' views. J Med Ethics. 2004 Jun;30(3):268–274. doi: 10.1136/jme.2003.003095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stolt Ulrica Gustafsson, Helgesson Gert, Liss Per-Erik, Svensson Tommy, Ludvigsson Johnny. Information and informed consent in a longitudinal screening involving children: a questionnaire survey. Eur J Hum Genet. 2005 Mar;13(3):376–383. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]