Misusing informed consent: a critique of limitations on research subjects' access to genetic research results.
Express denials of access to genetic research results are being drafted into consent instruments. Some commentators suggest that the principle of beneficence can justify such a denial of access. This paper provides an ethical and legal critique of the use of consent instruments to disclaim responsibility for on-going disclosure by genetic researchers. Currently, the law of torts provides only weak protection for on-going disclosure for research subjects. The most substantive rights are to be found in the law of fiduciary obligations. The author concludes that, notwithstanding arguments to the contrary, there should be a presumption of disclosure in genetic research, unless the research subject elects otherwise. The author outlines one possible exception to this general presumption.
Banks
T M
TM
Eberts Symes Street & Corbett.
D002170:Canada; D002961:Civil Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D030881:Disclosure / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D033002:Duty to Recontact / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D017007:Duty to Warn / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D032984:Ethics, Research; D030661:Genetic Privacy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D036281:Genetic Research / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006805:Human Experimentation / Q000941:ethics; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D016365:Liability, Legal; D010820:Physicians / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D035842:Research Subjects / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*