Most laws in Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and the United States have been interpreted as including a "patients right not to want to be told the risks of the medical treatment recommended by his or her physician. Should there be an "opt out clause" in research informed consent so that the individual can volunteer for a research trial for a new drug or new medical device without being told of the risks by the researcher, research team, or informed consent? Is this "opt out clause" in clinical care vs. research on human subjects a "good idea" of a "bad idea"? Why? On what grounds?
The doctrine of patient autonomy, one of the principalist medical ethics suggests that there would be a right "not to know".
The rather difficult problem is what it is they would not know. Since all current medical law and treaties require the consent of all research subjects in clinical trials they would need to be informed before consent could be given.
It would depend on whether the trial can benefit the participants directly. If it can only benefit potential future participants than all risks must be known before agreeing.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Computer Communications (Networks)
- Internet