These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A consumer perspective on informed consent and third-party issues.
    Author: Terry SF, Terry PF.
    Journal: J Contin Educ Health Prof; 2001; 21(4):256-64. PubMed ID: 11803770.
    Abstract:
    Our two children were diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder, which led us to establish a research foundation. This led to in-depth consideration of issues surrounding informed consent from a consumer perspective. Third-party issues arose as central to the formulation of ethical policy in the establishment of a blood and tissue bank and an epidemiologic study. We suggest that a number of myths--privacy is possible, samples can be stripped of identifiers, humans are subjects, voluntary informed consent is attainable, genetics is about the individual only, genetic information is different than other medical information, research is altruistic, the public will learn truths about genetic research via media, and research is culturally competent--make it difficult to resolve the issues intrinsic to informed consent. A number of important elements could make policy decisions less complicated. These include conducting culturally competent research; conveying noncoercive hope, not hype; contacting the voluntary informant only; asking the informant to extend contact to other family members; requiring a comprehensive informed consent process for all contacted; and engaging in state-of-the-art data protections. There is a need for a "Genomic Hippocratic Oath," creating an ethical basis for research similar to the one vowed by health care professionals. Establishing ethical policies as a result of the collaboration of policy makers, researchers, and consumers will allow research to progress ethically at a rapid rate. If regulations are oppressive, they will thwart research; if they are too lenient, participants will not receive protections needed to participate safely.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]