How Democracy Can Inform Consent: Cases of the Internet and Bioethics.

Traditional conceptions of informed consent seem difficult or even impossible to apply to new technologies like biobanks, big data, or GMOs, where vast numbers of people are potentially affected, and where consequences and risks are indeterminate or even unforeseeable. Likewise, the principle has co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Applied Philosophy Vol. 36; no. 2; pp. 173 - 192
Autor principal: Gould, Carol C.
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell May2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=136381139&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 136381139
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        02643758
        BQ0
      jtl: Journal of Applied Philosophy
      issn: 02643758
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: May2019
      vid: 36
      iid: 2
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
    artinfo:
      ui:
        136381139
        10.1111/japp.12360
      ppf: 173
      ppct: 19
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 124KB
      tig:
        atl: How Democracy Can Inform Consent: Cases of the Internet and Bioethics.
      aug:
        au: Gould, Carol C.
        affil: Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, USA
      su:
        Bioethics
        Informed consent (Medical law)
        Human rights
        Democracy
        Privacy
      sug:
        subj:
          Bioethics
          Informed consent (Medical law)
          Human rights
          Democracy
          Privacy
      ab: Traditional conceptions of informed consent seem difficult or even impossible to apply to new technologies like biobanks, big data, or GMOs, where vast numbers of people are potentially affected, and where consequences and risks are indeterminate or even unforeseeable. Likewise, the principle has come under strain with the appropriation and monetisation of personal information on digital platforms. Over time, it has largely been reduced to bare assent to formalistic legal agreements. To address the current ineffectiveness of the norm of informed consent, I suggest that we need a notion of structural injustice (on a distinctive interpretation, elaborated here, which takes account of unequal power and property relations). I then argue that in order to protect and enhance people's freedom, we have to go beyond traditional applied ethics and introduce perspectives from democratic theory and social philosophy. I attempt to show how applications of the 'all‐affected principle', together with new forms of democratic participation, deliberation, and representation can helpfully frame the narrower principle of informed consent. There is an important role for what we could call collective consent, and informed consent can only succeed in increasing individual agency if it is situated within enhanced forms of democratic decision‐making.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Journal of Applied Philosophy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Journal of Applied Philosophy
      holder: Wiley-Blackwell
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2019
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N