Patient perspectives on research use of residual biospecimens and health information: On the necessity of obtaining societal consent by creating a governance structure based on value-sharing

Research Ethics 17 (1):103-119 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Very few attempts have been made to survey patient opinions, particularly regarding the use of residual biospecimens and health information in research, to clarify their values. We conducted a questionnaire survey that targeted outpatients of a university hospital to gauge their awareness levels and understand patient perspectives on research that uses these items. Few patients felt that obtaining individual consent for each research study was necessary. Most patients expressed the view that researchers should be obligated to inform them about the research use of their items and be subject to self-directed rules (including sanctions). The research community should try to obtain “societal consent regarding an opt-out system” from the public. A salient value-sharing-based governance structure is necessary for obtaining public trust.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-04-19

Downloads
71 (#831,714)

6 months
29 (#327,597)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

I. Aus den Monographien.Gideon Stiening, Udo Roth & Hans-Peter Nowitzki - 2018 - In Gideon Stiening, Udo Roth & Hans-Peter Nowitzki, Ausgewählte Schriften. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. pp. 1-100.
Broadening consent--and diluting ethics?B. Hofmann - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (2):125-129.
In Defense of Broad Consent.Gert Helgesson - 2012 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 21 (1):40-50.
Building on relationships of trust in biobank research.M. G. Hansson - 2005 - Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (7):415-418.

View all 9 references / Add more references