Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42391335›Full record

ArticleEthics & human research

Including Research Subjects without Decision-Making Capacity Only as Last Resort.

Linus Broström, Anna Nilsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ethics & human research. 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

2 authors.

Linus BroströmDocent (associate professor) at the section of medical ethics in the Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund, at Lund University.
Anna NilssonDocent (associate professor) in human rights in the Department of Law in the Faculty of Law at Lund University in Sweden.

Funding

Riksbankens Jubileumsfond FOE20-0013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to discuss the ethical and legal justification of the broadly accepted ethical principle that researchers may not include adults without decision-making capacity to consent to participating in research studies if there are potential research participants with capacity who could be included instead. From the perspective of disability rights, the paper argues that this ethical principle is overprotective in its current form as it gives insufficient consideration to providing persons with disabilities the opportunity to participate in research on an equal basis with others. Nonetheless, the paper also argues that rather than rejecting this ethical principle entirely, it should be qualified to strike a better balance between protecting people without decisional capacity to consent to research and including them.

Indexed as

Decision MakingInformed ConsentMental CompetencyPersons with DisabilitiesResearch SubjectsDisability DiscriminationHumanscapacity to consentdisabilitydiscriminationhuman research protections

Identifiers

PMID42391335
PMCPMC13327232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.