Affiliation:
1. Centre for Medical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1130, N-0318 Oslo, Norway
2. Department of Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 191, N-2802 Gjøvik, Norway
Abstract
The objective of this article is to address the controversial question of whether consent is relevant for persons invited to participate in screening programs. To do so, it starts by presenting a case where the provided information historically has not been sufficient for obtaining valid informed consent for screening. Then, the article investigates some of the most relevant biases that cast doubt on the potential for satisfying standard criteria for informed consent. This may indicate that both in theory and in practice, it can be difficult to obtain valid consent for screening programs. Such an inference is profoundly worrisome, as invitees to screening programs are healthy individuals most suited to make autonomous decisions. Thus, if consent is not relevant for screening, it may not be relevant for a wide range of other health services. As such, the lack of valid consent in screening raises the question of the relevance of one of the basic ethical principles in healthcare (respect for autonomy), one of the most prominent legal norms in health legislation (informed consent), and one of the most basic tenets of liberal democracies (individual autonomy). Thus, there are good reasons to provide open, transparent, and balanced information and minimize biases in order to ascertain informed consent in screening.
Subject
Health Information Management,Health Informatics,Health Policy,Leadership and Management
Reference87 articles.
1. Information about screening—Is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice?;Raffle;Health Expect.,2001
2. Camilloni, L., Ferroni, E., Cendales, B.J., Pezzarossi, A., Furnari, G., Borgia, P., Guasticchi, G., Rossi, P.G., and Methods to Increase Participation Working Group (2013). Methods to increase participation in organised screening programs: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 13.
3. Challenges of informed choice in organised screening;Skolbekken;J. Med. Ethics,2008
4. Cancer screening campaigns—Getting past uninformative persuasion;Woloshin;N. Engl. J. Med.,2012
5. Quality-of-life effects of screening mammography in Norway;Zahl;Int. J. Cancer,2019
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献