...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of medical ethics >The biobank consent debate: why 'meta-consent' is still the solution!
【24h】

The biobank consent debate: why 'meta-consent' is still the solution!

机译:BIOBANK同意辩论:为什么“荟萃同意”仍然是解决方案!

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

In a recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Neil Manson sets out to show that the meta-consent model of informed consent is not the solution to perennial debate on the ethics of biobank participation. In this response, we shall argue that (i) Manson's considerations on the costs of a meta-consent model are incomplete and therefore misleading; (ii) his view that a model of broad consent passes a threshold of moral acceptability rests on an analogy that misconstrues how biobank research is actually conducted and (iii) a model of metaconsent is more in tune with the nature of biobank research and enables autonomous choice.
机译:在最近的医学道德杂志中,尼尔曼森举办了表明知情同意的元同意模型并不是对BioBank参与的伦理辩论的解决方案。 在这种反应中,我们应争辩说(i)曼森关于元同意模型成本的考虑因素不完整,因此误导; (ii)(ii)他认为,广泛同意的模型通过了道德可接受性的门槛,依赖于误解生物银行研究的类比,并且(iii)称号的模型与Biobank Research的性质更加符合Biobank Research的性质,并实现自主的 选择。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Journal of medical ethics》 |2019年第5期|共3页
  • 作者

    Ploug Thomas; Holm Soren;

  • 作者单位

    Aalborg Univ Dept Commun &

    Psychol Ctr Appl Eth &

    Philosophy Sci Copenhagen S Denmark;

    Univ Manchester Sch Law Ctr Social Eth &

    Policy Manchester Lancs England;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 医药、卫生;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号