Respect for Persons in Research and in Genetics

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines a central concept in ethics, that of respect for persons. This notion is widely used but understood in loose, varying, and sometimes inconsistent ways. Common ways of understanding the notion of respect for persons are explored and philosophical discussion of respect for persons is introduced, including the account given by Immanuel Kant. The scope of any imperative to show respect for persons is examined, together with its relation to personal information. The debate about the feedback of findings in genomics research is used as an illustration of how the notion of respect for persons has been used to produce practical ethical conclusions. However, a close examination of the literature shows how varying notions of respect are elided and how unwarranted conclusions may be drawn. Conclusions drawn include the need for careful elaboration of the notion of respect for persons, and the need to examine the evidential and argumentative support for a position.

Keywords

Research Participant Genomic Research Personal Health Information Positive Duty Ethical Duty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bovenberg J, Meulenkamp T, Gevers S (2009) Your biobank, your doctor? The right to full disclosure of population biobank findings. Genomics Soc Policy 5(1):55–79Google Scholar
  2. Clayton EW (2008) Incidental findings in genetics research using archived data. J Law Med Ethics 36(2):286–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dillon RS (2010) Respect. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Downie RS, Telfer E (1969) Respect for persons. George Allen and Unwin Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. European Commission (2004) 25 Recommendations on the ethical, legal and social implications of genetic testing. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  6. Fernandez CV, Kodish E, Weijer C (2003) Informing study participants of research results: an ethical imperative. IRB Ethics Hum Res 25(3):12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frueh FW, Greely HT, Green RC, Hogarth S, Siegel S (2011) The future of direct-to-consumer clinical genetic tests. Nat Rev Genet 12(7):511–515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heard E, Tishkoff S, Todd JA, Vidal M, Wagner GP, Wang J, Weigel D, Young R (2010) Ten years of genetics and genomics: what have we achieved and where are we heading? Nat Rev Genet 11(10):723–733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Human Genetics Commission (2002) Inside information: balancing interests in the use of personal genetic data. Human Genetics Commission, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Kant I (1948) Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals. Hutchinson University Library, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Knoppers BM, Joly Y, Simard J, Durocher F (2006) The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives. Eur J Hum Genet 14(11):1170–1178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. MacArthur D (2009) It’s my genome: should researchers be obliged to return genetic data to research participants? Robinson Bradshaw and Hinson. http://www.genomicslawreport.com/. Accessed July 2011
  13. McGuire AL, Caulfield T, Cho MK (2008) Research ethics and the challenge of whole-genome sequencing. Nat Rev Genet 9(2):152–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Partridge A, Winer E (2002) Informing clinical trial participants about study results. J Am Med Assoc 288:363–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ravitsky V, Wilfond BS (2006) Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am J Bioeth 6(6):8–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shalowitz DI, Miller FG (2005) Disclosing individual results of clinical research: implications of respect for participants. J Am Med Assoc 294(6):737–740. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.6.737 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sontag S (1983) Illness as metaphor. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Van Ness B (2008) Genomic research and incidental findings. J Law Med Ethics 36(2):292–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Somerville CollegeOxford UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations