Respect for Autonomy: Its Demands and Limits in Biobanking
- Iain Law
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
This paper argues that the demands of respect for autonomy in the context of biobanking are fewer and more limited than is often supposed. It discusses the difficulties of agreeing a concept of autonomy from which duties can easily be derived, and suggests an alternative way to determine what respect for autonomy in a biobanking context requires. These requirements, it argues, are limited to provision of adequate information and non-coercion. While neither of these is in itself negligible, this is a smaller set of demands than is often suggested. In particular, it is argued here that securing ‘one time consent’ is consistent with respect for autonomy. Finally, the paper notes that while the demands of respect for autonomy may be less than some suppose, respecting autonomy is not the only way in which biobanks and their users may have moral duties to donors.
- Arpaly, N. (2004). Which autonomy? In J. K. Campbell, M. O’Rourke, & D. Shier (Eds.), Freedom and determinism. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Belmont Report. (1979). The ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.
- Caulfield, T., Brown, R. B., & Meslin, E. M. (2007). Challenging a well established consent norm?: One time consent for biobank research. Journal of International Biotechnology Law, 4, 69–74. CrossRef
- Dworkin, G. (1981). The concept of autonomy. In R. Haller (Ed.), Science and ethics. New York: Rodopi Press.
- Dworkin, G. (1988). The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: CUP.
- Feinberg, J. (1989). Autonomy. In J. Christman (Ed.), The inner citadel. Oxford: OUP.
- Frankfurt, H. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. Journal of Philosophy, 68, 5–20. CrossRef
- Hill, T. E. (1991). Autonomy and self respect. Cambridge: CUP.
- Law, I. (1999). The hierarchical model of autonomy. Cogito, 12, 51–57.
- Law, I. (2003). Autonomy, sanity and moral theory. Res Publica, 9, 39–56. CrossRef
- Salvaterra, E., et al. (2008). Banking together: A unified model of informed consent for biobanking. European Molecular Biology Organization Reports, 9, 307–313.
- Schwartz, P. (2010). Autonomy and consent in biobanks (The 2009 Walter C. Randall Lecture in bioethics). The Physiologist, 53, 1–7.
- Steinmann, M. (2009). Under the pretence of autonomy: Contradictions in the guidelines for human tissue donation. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 12, 281–289. CrossRef
- Ursin, L. O. (2009). Duties and rights of biobank participants: Principled autonomy, consent, voluntariness and privacy. In J. H. Solbakk, et al. (Eds.), The ethics of research biobanking (pp. 69–84). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRef
- Watson, G. (1989). Free agency. In J. Christman (Ed.), The inner citadel. Oxford: OUP.
- Respect for Autonomy: Its Demands and Limits in Biobanking
Health Care Analysis
Volume 19, Issue 3 , pp 259-268
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Moral duties
- Iain Law (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Philosophy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK