Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41925994›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2026

Reconceptualizing Informed Consent as the Objective Activity of Real Person.

Cong Pang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Cong PangDepartment of Philosophy, Marxist Research Center for Science, Technology, and Society (STS), Shanghai University, 333 Nanchen Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200444, China. cpang@shu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7808-9178

Funding

Shanghai Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science 2024EZX006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper argues that viewing informed consent as an autonomous action is problematic because it is based on an idealized conception of the person and of autonomy. Instead, informed consent should be viewed as the objective activity of real, concrete persons. In this activity, an individual, acting as a subject, authorizes a specific object for a particular purpose. A person's choice is fundamentally constrained by the reality of both the object and the subject (the individual themselves). Accordingly, individuals must understand the nature of the object and its relevance to their own situation in order to make appropriate decisions. However, since cognitive activity is fundamentally constrained by practical conditions, there is no assurance that individuals can achieve sufficient understanding when making a consent decision. Therefore, the cognitive goal of informed consent should not be to ensure complete understanding in advance but to maximize the likelihood that sufficient understanding will be achieved. The appropriate cognitive threshold must also vary according to the actual circumstances of each individual. On this basis, the paper proposes a more complete informed consent process consisting of three stages: pre-consent communication, post-consent verification, and consent process optimization.

Indexed as

AutonomyInformed consentMarxismSubjective activityUnderstanding

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.