Health Care Analysis

, 19:259

Respect for Autonomy: Its Demands and Limits in Biobanking

Original Article


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.


Autonomy Biobanking Consent Moral duties 


  1. 1.
    Arpaly, N. (2004). Which autonomy? In J. K. Campbell, M. O’Rourke, & D. Shier (Eds.), Freedom and determinism. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dworkin, G. (1981). The concept of autonomy. In R. Haller (Ed.), Science and ethics. New York: Rodopi Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dworkin, G. (1988). The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feinberg, J. (1989). Autonomy. In J. Christman (Ed.), The inner citadel. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frankfurt, H. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. Journal of Philosophy, 68, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hill, T. E. (1991). Autonomy and self respect. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Law, I. (1999). The hierarchical model of autonomy. Cogito, 12, 51–57.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Law, I. (2003). Autonomy, sanity and moral theory. Res Publica, 9, 39–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salvaterra, E., et al. (2008). Banking together: A unified model of informed consent for biobanking. European Molecular Biology Organization Reports, 9, 307–313.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwartz, P. (2010). Autonomy and consent in biobanks (The 2009 Walter C. Randall Lecture in bioethics). The Physiologist, 53, 1–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steinmann, M. (2009). Under the pretence of autonomy: Contradictions in the guidelines for human tissue donation. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 12, 281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Watson, G. (1989). Free agency. In J. Christman (Ed.), The inner citadel. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations