scholarly journals The common rule's ‘reasonable person’ standard for informed consent

Bioethics ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jake Greenblum ◽  
Ryan Hubbard
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
The Common

The Reasonable Person Standard for Research Disclosure: A Reasonable Addition to the Common Rule

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Dresser
Keyword(s):  
Personal Experience ◽  
National Commission ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
Research Oversight ◽  
The Common ◽  
Oversight System ◽  
Study Participants ◽  
Injured Patients

The revised Common Rule adopts the reasonable person standard to guide research disclosure. Some members of the research community contend that the standard is confusing and ill-suited to the research oversight system. Yet the revised rule is not as radical as it might seem. During the 1970s, judges started using the standard to evaluate negligence claims brought by injured patients who said doctors had failed to obtain informed consent to the harmful procedures. In its influential Belmont Report, the National Commission recommended application of a “reasonable volunteer standard” to guide IRBs evaluating research disclosures. Evidence also suggests that IRBs often invoke the reasonable person standard in deliberations about consent forms. But past application of the standard has been informal and uneven. Robust application of the reasonable person standard will require researchers and IRBs to learn more about what ordinary people want and need to know about the studies they are invited to join. Input from people with personal experience as study participants could be particularly useful to this effort.

Justifying risk-related standards of capacity via autonomy alone

2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2020-106733
Author(s):  
Abraham Graber
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Biomedical Ethics ◽  
The Other ◽  
Decisional Capacity ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard

The debate over risk-related standards of decisional capacity remains one of the most important and unresolved challenges to our understanding of the demands of informed consent. On one hand, risk-related standards benefit from significant intuitive support. On the other hand, risk-related standards appear to be committed to asymmetrical capacity—a conceptual incoherence. This latter objection can be avoided by holding that risk-related standards are the result of evidential considerations introduced by (i) the reasonable person standard and (ii) the standing assumption that patients have capacity. This evidential approach to justifying risk-related standards of capacity avoids the most significant challenges faced by extant views while grounding risk-related standards in two fairly uncontroversial views in biomedical ethics.

The “Reasonable Person” Standard for Research Informed Consent

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (7) ◽  
pp. 49-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura M. Odwazny ◽  
Benjamin E. Berkman
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard

Torts and Other Wrongs

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Gardner
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Moral Significance ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
The Law

Torts and Other Wrongs is a collection of eleven of the author’s essays on the theory of the law of torts and its place in the law more generally. Two new essays accompany nine previously published pieces, a number of which are already established classics of theoretical writing on private law. Together they range across the distinction between torts and other wrongs, the moral significance of outcomes, the nature and role of corrective and distributive justice, the justification of strict liability, the nature of the reasonable person standard, and the role of public policy in private law adjudication. Though focused on the law of torts, the wide-ranging analysis in each chapter will speak to theorists of private law more generally.

Sexual Harassment: The “Reasonable Person” vs “Reasonable Woman” Standards have not been Resolved

1996 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 329-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Douglas Woody ◽  
Wayne Viney ◽  
Paul A. Bell ◽  
Nora L. Bensko
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
The Other ◽  
Hostile Environment ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
Reasonable Woman Standard

Previous research suggests that women are more likely than men to perceive a hostile environment of sexual harassment in job-related scenarios. Such findings raise questions about whether a “reasonable woman” standard might be preferable to a “reasonable person” standard for adjudication of some sexual harassment cases. There are sound arguments for both positions, and there is no basis at the present time for unequivocal and categorical support for one position over the other.

One step forward, two steps back? The GMC, the common law and 'informed' consent

2010 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 494-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Fovargue ◽  
J. Miola
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Common Law ◽  
One Step ◽  
The Common

Preoperative planning for total hip replacement, consent, and complications

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.W.J. Carrington
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Preoperative Planning ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Comprehensive Knowledge ◽  
The Common

♦ Preoperative planning is essential to achieve successful results after total hip replacement♦ Obtaining informed consent is important for both surgeon and patient♦ The surgeon must have a comprehensive knowledge of the aetiology and treatment of the common associated complications.

Genetic Knowledge and Third-Party Interests

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 386-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELISABETH BOETZKES
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Information ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Insurance Companies ◽  
Royal Commission ◽  
Dna Testing ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
Professional Guidelines

Recent discussions of genetic information have highlighted the need for ethical disclosure guidelines. For instance, the (Canadian) Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies points out the range of third-party interests in genetic information and the lack of clear ethical and professional guidelines governing its dissemination. Among the more worrying interests are those of insurance companies and prospective employers. However, also worrisome is the problem of negotiating the first-party interest in privacy (from which the professional obligation of confidentiality arises) and strong third-party claims from family members. The survey by Knoppers and Laberge of consent forms currently used in DNA testing in Canada shows that fewer than half mention access by family members, and only three out of 20 alert subjects to the possibility of finding nonpaternity. Both the Royal Commission and the Knoppers research group recommend integrated, national consent standards, with the Knoppers group explicitly approving a “reasonable person” standard of disclosure. While endorsing the call for integrated consent guidelines, in this paper I intend to raise some doubts about the adequacy of the reasonable person standard in light of gender differences in reproductive burden and risk perception.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document