Abstract
This paper argues that the demands of respect for autonomy in the context of biobanking are fewer and more limited than is often supposed. It discusses the difficulties of agreeing a concept of autonomy from which duties can easily be derived, and suggests an alternative way to determine what respect for autonomy in a biobanking context requires. These requirements, it argues, are limited to provision of adequate information and non-coercion. While neither of these is in itself negligible, this is a smaller set of demands than is often suggested. In particular, it is argued here that securing ‘one time consent’ is consistent with respect for autonomy. Finally, the paper notes that while the demands of respect for autonomy may be less than some suppose, respecting autonomy is not the only way in which biobanks and their users may have moral duties to donors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arpaly, N. (2004). Which autonomy? In J. K. Campbell, M. O’Rourke, & D. Shier (Eds.), Freedom and determinism. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Belmont Report. (1979). The ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.
Caulfield, T., Brown, R. B., & Meslin, E. M. (2007). Challenging a well established consent norm?: One time consent for biobank research. Journal of International Biotechnology Law, 4, 69–74.
Dworkin, G. (1981). The concept of autonomy. In R. Haller (Ed.), Science and ethics. New York: Rodopi Press.
Dworkin, G. (1988). The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: CUP.
Feinberg, J. (1989). Autonomy. In J. Christman (Ed.), The inner citadel. Oxford: OUP.
Frankfurt, H. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. Journal of Philosophy, 68, 5–20.
Hill, T. E. (1991). Autonomy and self respect. Cambridge: CUP.
Law, I. (1999). The hierarchical model of autonomy. Cogito, 12, 51–57.
Law, I. (2003). Autonomy, sanity and moral theory. Res Publica, 9, 39–56.
Salvaterra, E., et al. (2008). Banking together: A unified model of informed consent for biobanking. European Molecular Biology Organization Reports, 9, 307–313.
Schwartz, P. (2010). Autonomy and consent in biobanks (The 2009 Walter C. Randall Lecture in bioethics). The Physiologist, 53, 1–7.
Steinmann, M. (2009). Under the pretence of autonomy: Contradictions in the guidelines for human tissue donation. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 12, 281–289.
Ursin, L. O. (2009). Duties and rights of biobank participants: Principled autonomy, consent, voluntariness and privacy. In J. H. Solbakk, et al. (Eds.), The ethics of research biobanking (pp. 69–84). Dordrecht: Springer.
Watson, G. (1989). Free agency. In J. Christman (Ed.), The inner citadel. Oxford: OUP.
Acknowledgments
I’d like to thank Sean Cordell and Heather Widdows for asking me to think about this issue, and Søren Holm for comments on an earlier version.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Law, I. Respect for Autonomy: Its Demands and Limits in Biobanking. Health Care Anal 19, 259–268 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-011-0192-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-011-0192-x