title: Can Broad Consent be Informed Consent?
abstract: In biobanks, a broader model of consent is often used and justified by a range of different strategies that make reference to the potential benefits brought by the research it will facilitate combined with the low level of risk involved (provided adequate measures are in place to protect privacy and confidentiality) or a questioning of the centrality of the notion of informed consent. Against this, it has been suggested that the lack of specific information about particular uses of the samples means that such consent cannot be fully autonomous and so is unethical. My answer to the title question is a definite 'yes'. Broad consent can be informed consent and is justified by appeal to the principle of respect for autonomy. Indeed, I will suggest that the distinction between the various kinds of consent is not a distinction between kinds of consent but between the kinds of choice a person makes. When an individual makes a choice (of any kind) it is important that they do so according to the standards of informed consent and consistent with the choice that they are making.
authors.affiliation: Oxford BRC Ethics Fellow and James Martin Research Fellow, Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, the Ethox Centre and the Institute for Science and Ethics, University of Oxford.
authors.forename: Mark
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Sheehan
references.citation: Bioethics. 2004;18(1):27-49
references.pmid: 15168697
references.citation: Nat Biotechnol. 2007 Sep;25(9):973-6
references.pmid: 17846619
references.citation: Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev. 2008;25:429-52
references.pmid: 21412365
references.citation: Eur J Hum Genet. 2005 Sep;13(9):1071-6
references.pmid: 15986039
references.citation: Bioethics. 2011 Mar;25(3):155-66
references.pmid: 19659851
references.citation: Theor Med Bioeth. 2001 Sep;22(5):415-36
references.pmid: 11808677
references.citation: J Med Ethics. 2008 Mar;34(3):146-9
references.pmid: 18316453
references.citation: Bioethics. 2005 Oct;19(5-6):492-504
references.pmid: 16425486
references.citation: J Law Med Ethics. 2005 Spring;33(1):89-101
references.pmid: 15934669
references.citation: Lancet Oncol. 2006 Mar;7(3):266-9
references.pmid: 16510336
references.citation: Health Law Rev. 2005;13(2-3):33-8
references.pmid: 16459412
references.citation: J Med Ethics. 2009 Feb;35(2):125-9
references.pmid: 19181887
references.citation: BMC Med Ethics. 2003 Jan 03;4:E1
references.pmid: 12513704
references.citation: Lancet. 2009 Nov 14;374(9702):1676
references.pmid: 19914512
references.citation: Nat Rev Genet. 2004 Nov;5(11):866-73
references.pmid: 15520796
references.citation: J Med Ethics. 2004 Feb;30(1):88-91
references.pmid: 14872083
references.citation: Nat Biotechnol. 2008 Sep;26(9):979-80; author reply 980-1
references.pmid: 18779801
references.citation: BMJ. 2006 Mar 4;332(7540):544-7
references.pmid: 16513715
references.citation: Nat Rev Cancer. 2003 Jan;3(1):73-7
references.pmid: 12509769
references.citation: J Med Philos. 1998 Feb;23(1):10-30
references.pmid: 9555632