title: Why we should continue to worry about the therapeutic misconception.
abstract: In a recent article in The Journal of Clinical Ethics, David Wendler argues that worries about the therapeutic misconception (TM) are not only misconceived, but detract from the larger agenda of a proper informed consent for subjects involved in clinical research.1 By contrast, we argue that Wendler mischaracterizes those who support TM research, and that his arguments are fragmentary, often illogical, and neglect a critical difference between clinical care and clinical research. A clear explanation about the chief aim of research is, in fact, what gives the other elements in a consent process their meaning. We argue that informed consent must be both trial-specific and context-sensitive, and that concern about the TM is needed now more than ever.
authors.affiliation: Ann Geddes Stahlman Professor of Medical Ethics Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, USA. larry.churchill@vanderbilt.edu
authors.forename: Larry R
authors.initials: LR
authors.lastname: Churchill
authors.affiliation: Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy in the Division of Public Health Sciences at Wake Forest University in Winston Salem, North Carolina, USA.
authors.forename: Nancy M P
authors.initials: NM
authors.lastname: King
authors.affiliation: School of Medicine, and is Adjunct Professor of Sociology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA.
authors.forename: Gail E
authors.initials: GE
authors.lastname: Henderson
mesh_terms: D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic / Q000941:ethics*; D006805:Human Experimentation / Q000941:ethics*; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000941:ethics*; D035842:Research Subjects; D055990:Therapeutic Misconception / Q000941:ethics*