scholarly journals Engaging Diverse Stakeholders to Inform Biobank Governance

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Murphy ◽  
Sarah B. Garrett ◽  
Elizabeth Boyd ◽  
Sarah Dry ◽  
Daniel Dohan
Keyword(s):  
Biobank Governance

Multiple Stakeholder Views on Data Sharing in a Biobank in an Integrated Healthcare Delivery System: Implications for Biobank Governance

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 207-216
Author(s):  
Caroline G. Tai ◽  
Julie Harris-Wai ◽  
Catherine Schaefer ◽  
Petra Liljestrand ◽  
Carol P. Somkin
Keyword(s):  
Data Sharing ◽  
Delivery System ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Healthcare Delivery System ◽  
Integrated Healthcare ◽  
Stakeholder Views ◽  
Multiple Stakeholder ◽  
Biobank Governance

scholarly journals Biobank Governance: Trends and Perspectives

Pathobiology ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 206-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Gottweis ◽  
K. Zatloukal
Keyword(s):  
Biobank Governance

Balancing Powers: Examining models of Biobank Governance

2004 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Mark Cutter ◽  
Sarah Wilson ◽  
Ruth Chadwick
Keyword(s):  
Biobank Governance

scholarly journals Challenges in biobank governance in Sub-Saharan Africa

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ciara Staunton ◽  
Keymanthri Moodley
Keyword(s):  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
Biobank Governance

The case against meta-consent: not only do Ploug and Holm not answer it, they make it even stronger

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (9) ◽  
pp. 627-628 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil C Manson
Keyword(s):  
Recent Article ◽  
Broad Consent ◽  
Ethical Reason ◽  
Dynamic Consent ◽  
Additional Costs ◽  
Meta Consent ◽  
Biobank Governance

In a recent article, I argued that Ploug and Holm’s ‘meta-consent’ proposal should be rejected for biobank governance. This was because, although meta-consent is permissible, it is both burdensome and ethically omissible. There is no ethical reason why funders should undertake the additional costs. Ploug and Holm have sought to respond to these arguments. Here, it is noted that not only do they fail to adequately refuse the case against meta-consent, they fail to even engage with the arguments, either misunderstanding them or ignoring them. In their response, Ploug and Holm unwittingly provide the basis of an even stronger case against meta-consent. They argue that broad consent has a built in tendency to expire, while also holding that broad consent should be one of the options available in meta-consent. Meta-consent thus ends up being more like dynamic consent, but, arguably, even more burdensome and costly.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document