Differentiating and evaluating common good and public good: making implicit assumptions explicit in the contexts of consent and duty to participate.
The notions 'common good' and 'public good' are mostly used as synonyms in bioethical discussion of biobanks, but have different origins. As a consequence, they should be applied differently. In this article, the respective characteristics are worked out and then subsequently examined which consent models emerge from them. Distinguishing normative and descriptive traits of both concepts, it turns out that one concept is unjustly used, and that the other one fits better to the context of a plural society. A reflected use of these differing concepts may help to choose an appropriate form of consent and allows public trust in biobank research to deepen.
Faculty of Philosophy and Department of Theology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany. arndt.bialobrzeski@theologie.uni-erlangen.de
A
A
Bialobrzeski
J
J
Ried
P
P
Dabrock
D018070:Biological Specimen Banks / Q000941:ethics*; D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000941:ethics*; D003219:Confidentiality / Q000941:ethics*; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000941:ethics*; D010358:Patient Participation; D011634:Public Health / Q000592:standards*; D012935:Social Justice; D035502:Trust