Comments on the Role of Consent and Individual Autonomy in the PIP Breast Implant Scandal

Public Health Ethics 6 (2):223-226 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The featured case discussion on the role of consent and individual autonomy in the PIP breast implant scandal raises interesting and important questions regarding the right of patients (and individuals in general) to decide whether to have their personal data included in medical registries and used for research. The fate of the National Breast Implant Registry, following the introduction of a policy that demanded formally recorded informed consent, is particularly enlightening. Combined with the (ex post) fact that reliable and comprehensive data would have been useful in this specific case, it clearly illustrates the dangers of overemphasizing individual autonomy in observational research. The issue is timely, as the European Commission has recently proposed a new Data Protection Regulation (European Commission, 2012) that may have serious implications for registry based research. In this commentary, I will first discuss two aspects of the regulatory framework that arguably contribute to the problematic situation and then offer an alternative view on why requiring consent should not be the default position in this kind of research

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,880

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Autonomy and informed consent: A mistaken association? [REVIEW]Sigurdur Kristinsson - 2007 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 10 (3):253-264.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-07-17

Downloads
77 (#275,376)

6 months
11 (#377,362)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Rethinking research ethics.Rosamond Rhodes - 2005 - American Journal of Bioethics 5 (1):7 – 28.

Add more references