The case against meta-consent:not only do Ploug and Holm not answer it, they make it even stronger

Manson, Neil (2020) The case against meta-consent:not only do Ploug and Holm not answer it, they make it even stronger. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46 (9). pp. 627-628. ISSN 0306-6800

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

In a recent article, I argued that Ploug and Holm’s ‘meta-consent’ proposal should be rejected for biobank governance. This was because, although meta-consent is permissible, it is both burdensome and ethically omissible. There is no ethical reason why funders should undertake the additional costs. Ploug and Holm have sought to respond to these arguments. Here, it is noted that not only do they fail to adequately refuse the case against meta-consent, they fail to even engage with the arguments, either misunderstanding them or ignoring them. In their response, Ploug and Holm unwittingly provide the basis of an even stronger case against meta-consent. They argue that broad consent has a built in tendency to expire, while also holding that broad consent should be one of the options available in meta-consent. Meta-consent thus ends up being more like dynamic consent, but, arguably, even more burdensome and costly.

Item Type:
Journal Article
Journal or Publication Title:
Journal of Medical Ethics
Uncontrolled Keywords:
/dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/2700/2719
Subjects:
ID Code:
139498
Deposited By:
Deposited On:
09 Dec 2019 11:45
Refereed?:
Yes
Published?:
Published
Last Modified:
16 Sep 2020 06:01