Voluntariness of Consent to Research: A Conceptual Model: A Good Deal of Policy and Practice in Human Subjects Research Aims to Ensure That When Subjects Consent to Research, They Do So Voluntarily. to Date, However, Voluntariness and Its Impairment Have Been Poorly Conceptualized and Studied. the Legal Doctrine of Informed Consent Could Provide a Useful Model

By Appelbaum, Paul S.; Lidz, Charles W. et al. | The Hastings Center Report, January-February 2009 | Go to article overview

Voluntariness of Consent to Research: A Conceptual Model: A Good Deal of Policy and Practice in Human Subjects Research Aims to Ensure That When Subjects Consent to Research, They Do So Voluntarily. to Date, However, Voluntariness and Its Impairment Have Been Poorly Conceptualized and Studied. the Legal Doctrine of Informed Consent Could Provide a Useful Model


Appelbaum, Paul S., Lidz, Charles W., Klitzman, Robert, The Hastings Center Report


Informed consent to research derives from a legal doctrine that calls for potential research subjects to have meaningful choice. It comprises three elements: relevant information is provided to a person who is competent to make a decision, and who is situated to do so voluntarily. (1) The first definitive statement of the importance of consent as a prerequisite to research participation, the tribunal's decision in the Doctors' Trial at Nuremberg, underscored the crucial role of voluntariness in that process: "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential." (2) However, existing literature on informed consent has focused extensively on the information disclosed and how well it is communicated--and, more recently, on the theoretical and practical aspects of the assessment of decisional competence--while the nature of the requirement of voluntariness has yet to be fully explored. (3)

Current controversies over the extent to which a variety of recruitment approaches may compromise voluntary consent to research have raised concerns about the topic. Such concerns are usually invoked under the rubrics of coercion or undue influence. The federal regulations on human subjects research refer to both concepts but define neither. (4) However, the regulations identify several subject groups--including children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally disabled persons, and economically or educationally disadvantaged persons--as "likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence." They also indicate that a criterion for institutional review board approval of such research is that "additional safeguards have been included in the study to protect the rights and welfare of these subjects." (5)

Potentially impaired voluntariness has also been raised as an issue in numerous other contexts in the bioethics literature on consent to research. These include, but are not limited to, when:

1) substantial monetary or other compensation is offered in exchange for entering a research study; (6)

2) subjects are recruited by their own physicians or in facilities where they are receiving care and may be hesitant to antagonize caregivers by refusing to participate, especially if they are poor, elderly, or suffering from chronic conditions; (7)

3) subjects are being recruited from traditional societies in international research and are thought to be wholly subordinate to a person in a position of authority (for example, a husband or tribal leader); (8)

4) drug abusers are recruited for studies that involve the administration of their drug of choice or are paid for participation and thought likely to use the money to purchase drugs; (9)

5) involuntarily committed psychiatric or substance abuse patients are recruited for research; (10) and

6) patients who otherwise lack access to medical care are invited to participate in studies that promise treatment for their conditions. (11)

A good deal of policy and practice regarding human subjects research has been based on assumptions regarding situations that may impair voluntariness. Many IRBs have policies that limit the amount of compensation that can be offered to subjects, although compensation practices vary widely even within the United States, and investigators are often not allowed to advertise the amount offered. (12) Some have suggested that physicians not be allowed to recruit their own patients as subjects, especially for studies involving more than minimal risk, and anecdotal evidence suggests that some IRBs may already bar this practice. Federal regulations sharply limit the kind of research that can be conducted in prisons, mandating rigorous review even for permitted categories of investigations, such as minimal risk studies of criminal behavior and incarceration. (13) Other limitations are placed on research with pregnant women and children. (14) And a variety of protections have been suggested for subjects in international and drug abuse studies, which now receive more careful review, in substantial part because of concerns about coercion. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Voluntariness of Consent to Research: A Conceptual Model: A Good Deal of Policy and Practice in Human Subjects Research Aims to Ensure That When Subjects Consent to Research, They Do So Voluntarily. to Date, However, Voluntariness and Its Impairment Have Been Poorly Conceptualized and Studied. the Legal Doctrine of Informed Consent Could Provide a Useful Model
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.