IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v70y2010i2p217-220.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

"Broad" consent, exceptions to consent and the question of using biological samples for research purposes different from the initial collection purpose

Author

Listed:
  • Petrini, Carlo

Abstract

An important ethical issue regarding biological samples stored in biobanks is unforeseen future sample use, when no or limited subject consent is obtained. Biobanks of biological samples have significant future research potential, but may cause conflicts of interest regarding the consent obtained. Indeed, ethics, deontology, and jurisprudence generally advise that consent must be specific and circumstantiated. However, it is not possible to foresee all of the future circumstances in which the samples might be useful, nor is it possible to re-contact all subjects in order to gain consent for a new use. The main arguments for the use of "broad" consent are presented with a brief discussion of the conditions where it may be legitimate not to obtain consent. Particular attention is given to the expressed positions of national and international bioethics bodies.

Suggested Citation

  • Petrini, Carlo, 2010. ""Broad" consent, exceptions to consent and the question of using biological samples for research purposes different from the initial collection purpose," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 217-220, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:2:p:217-220
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(09)00666-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Regidor, Enrique, 2004. "The use of personal data from medical records and biological materials: ethical perspectives and the basis for legal restrictions in health research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(9), pages 1975-1984, November.
    2. Lako, C. J., 1986. "Privacy protection and population-based health research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 293-295, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Teare, Harriet & Morrison, M. & Whitley, Edgar A. & Kaye, Jane, 2015. "Towards 'engagement 2.0': insights from a study of dynamic consent with biobank participants," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 63278, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Yann Joly & Gratien Dalpé & Derek So & Stanislav Birko, 2015. "Fair Shares and Sharing Fairly: A Survey of Public Views on Open Science, Informed Consent and Participatory Research in Biobanking," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Noor A A Giesbertz & Annelien L Bredenoord & Johannes J M van Delden, 2012. "Inclusion of Residual Tissue in Biobanks: Opt-In or Opt-Out?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-6, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marco Kools & Virginia E. Vitiello, 2010. "Good Governance of Early Childhood Development Programmes in Developing Countries: The need for a comprehensive monitoring system," Papers indipa597, Innocenti Discussion Papers.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:2:p:217-220. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.