ArticleJournal of medical ethics2003
Some limits of informed consent.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 111 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
111 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Ethical, legal, and social aspects of health technologies for home-based paediatric palliative care - a systematic review.BMC palliative care · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): trial protocol.BMC public health · 2009Trial
- Dynamic consent: a royal road to research consent?Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- Histories in bone: Navigating the ethical landscape of human skeletal collections in South Africa.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- The Function of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) Request Forms in the Australian Context.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026Article
- Article
- Prioritising time for communication in healthcare-a normative analysis.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
- When facts are not fixed: rethinking shared decision making at the margins of neonatal viability.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Public attitudes towards consent for the donation of surplus frozen eggs to research.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Not all information is equally important: informed consent to genetic testing for hereditary cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Informed consent practices among emergency staff for patients undergoing emergency surgery in the emergency surgical units of two tertiary teaching hospitals in Uganda: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Awareness and perspectives on patients' rights: a survey of health profession students at a Ugandan University.African health sciences · 2025Article
- Consent and its discontents: the case of UK Biobank.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Article
- Informed Consent in Perinatal Care: Challenges and Best Practices in Obstetric and Midwifery-Led Models.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Review
- A Randomized Controlled Trial of Video-Assisted Electronic Consent versus Standard Consent for Percutaneous Kidney Biopsy.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2025Article
- Exploring Partial Disclosure in Research: Challenges, Justifications, and Recommendations for Ethical Oversight.Asian bioethics review · 2025Article
- Proxies of Trustworthiness: A Novel Framework to Support the Performance of Trust in Human Health Research.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2024Article
- Waiving the consent requirement to mitigate bias in observational precision medicine research.International journal for equity in health · 2024Article
- Supporting patient decision-making in non-invasive prenatal testing: a comparative study of professional values and practices in England and France.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
51 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many accounts of informed consent in medical ethics claim that it is valuable because it supports individual autonomy. Unfortunately there are many distinct conceptions of individual autonomy, and their ethical importance varies. A better reason for taking informed consent seriously is that it provides assurance that patients and others are neither deceived nor coerced. Present debates about the relative importance of generic and specific consent (particularly in the use of human tissues for research and in secondary studies) do not address this issue squarely. Consent is a propositional attitude, so intransitive: complete, wholly specific consent is an illusion. Since the point of consent procedures is to limit deception and coercion, they should be designed to give patients and others control over the amount of information they receive and opportunity to rescind consent already given.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.