Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-26vmc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T08:44:52.256Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Health Ideologies, Objectivism, and the Common Good: On the Rights of Dissidents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2011

ROGER STRAND
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With the development of large-scale health registries and human biobanks to be used as research infrastructures, bioethicists, lawyers, philosophers, and social scientists have worked intensely to cast light on current challenges to the principle of informed consent.

Type
Special Section: From Informed Consent to No Consent?
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 605 - 611
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Sekretariatet for Nasjonalt helseregisterprosjekt. Gode helseregistre—bedre helse. Oslo: Folke-helseinstituttet; 2010.

2. Sekretariatet for Nasjonalt helseregisterprosjekt. Gode helseregistre—bedre helse: Kortversjon og eksempelsamling. Oslo: Folkehelseinstituttet; 2010.

3. See note 2, Sekretariatet for Nasjonalt helseregisterprosjekt 2010:14.

4. See note 1, Sekretariatet for Nasjonalt helseregisterprosjekt 2010:3.

5. See note 1, Sekretariatet for Nasjonalt helseregisterprosjekt 2010.

6. “Personvernulemper” in Norwegian.

7. Beauchamp, TL, Childress, JF.Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 6th ed.New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.Google Scholar

8. See note 1, Sekretariatet for Nasjonalt helseregisterprosjekt 2010:51.

9. Fisher, ES, Welch, HG.Avoiding the unintended consequences of growth in medical care: How might more be worse? Journal of the American Medical Association 1999;281:446–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10. See note 7, Beauchamp, Childress 2009.

11. I base the discussion of Beauchamp and Childress on the sixth edition of Principles of Biomedical Ethics. It should be mentioned that the Norwegian strategy documents refer to the fourth edition.

12. See note 7, Beauchamp, Childress 2009:221. Original emphasis.

13. See note 7, Beauchamp, Childress 2009:222.

14. Douglas, M, Wildawski, A.Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press; 1982.Google Scholar

15. Wynne, B.Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change 1992;2:111–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Funtowicz, SO, Ravetz, JR.Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. To my surprise, in one of these projects sensitive health data on children were included and published even when the parents refused to give consent. In fact, refusal to give consent was used as an explanatory variable for mental health problems. Stormark, KM, Heiervang, E, Heimann, M, Lundervold, A, Gillberg, C.Predicting nonresponse bias from teacher ratings of mental health problems in primary school children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 2008;36:411–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed