Broad Consent

  • Linus Broström
  • Mats Johansson
Part of the Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine book series (STEMCELL)


The requirement of informed consent is central to research ethics. Translational stem cell research is one of those areas, however, where the choice to donate biological material is not likely to satisfy the criteria for a truly informed consent, due to the uncertainties about possible future research applications. The question arises whether so called broad consent, where the individual authorizes research usages that are specified only in rather broad terms, may morally legitimize the relevant research. This chapter argues that in order to settle this question, one first needs to adress certain other questions, in particular what the moral reasons are for requiring informed consent in the first place.


Autonomy Biobanks Broad consent Informed consent Research ethics 



An earlier draft of this chapter was presented at a workshop arranged by the Vårdal Institute, The Swedish Institute for Health Sciences. We are especially grateful to Barbro Krevers and Daniel Ekeblom for valuable comments.


  1. 1.
    WMA Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, 2008. Available from:
  2. 2.
    Milgram S. Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row; 1973.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartram CR, Carlson JA, Helgesson G. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncol. 2006 Mar; 7:266–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Petrini C. “Broad” consent, exceptions to consent and the question of using biological samples for research purposes different from the initial purpose. Soc Sci Med. 2010 Jan; 70:217–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wendler D. One-time general consent for research on biological samples. BMJ 2006 Mar; 332:544–7 (4 Mar 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allen J, McNamara B. Reconsidering the value of consent in biobank research. Bioethics 2009. E-pub.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caulfield T, Kaye J. Broad consent in biobanking: Reflections on seemingly insurmountable dilemmas. Med Law Int. 2009; 10:85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hofmann B. Broadening consent: Broadening consent and diluting ethics? J Med Ethics. 2009; 35:125–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford UP; 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brekke OA, Sirnes T. Population biobanks: The ethical gravity of informed consent. BioSocieties 2006; 1:385–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mill JS. On liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ursin LØ. Personal autonomy and informed consent. Med Health Care Philos. 2009; 12:17–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Neill O. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kristinsson S. Autonomy and informed consent: A mistaken association? Med Health Care Philos. 2007; 10:253–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manson NC, O’Neill O. Rethinking informed consent. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thomson JJ. The trolley problem. Yale L J. 1985; 94:1395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Darwall S. The second-person standpoint. Morality, respect, and accountability. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Broström L, Johansson M. Surrogates have not been shown to make inaccurate substituted judgments. J Clin Ethics. 2009; 20:266–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linus Broström
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mats Johansson
  1. 1.Department of Medical EthicsLund University, Biomedical CentreLundSweden
  2. 2.The Vårdal Institute, The Swedish Institute for Health SciencesLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations