• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

超越知情同意:治疗性误解与信任。

Beyond informed consent: the therapeutic misconception and trust.

作者信息

de Melo-Martín I, Ho A

机构信息

Division of Medical Ethics, Department of Public Health, Weill Cornell Medical College, 411 E. 69th Street, New York, NY, USA.

出版信息

J Med Ethics. 2008 Mar;34(3):202-5. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.019406.

DOI:10.1136/jme.2006.019406
PMID:18316464
Abstract

The therapeutic misconception has been seen as presenting an ethical problem because failure to distinguish the aims of research participation from those receiving ordinary treatment may seriously undermine the informed consent of research subjects. Hence, most theoretical and empirical work on the problems of the therapeutic misconception has been directed to evaluate whether, and to what degree, this confusion invalidates the consent of subjects. We argue here that this focus on the understanding component of informed consent, while important, might be too narrow to capture the ethical complexity of the therapeutic misconception. We show that concerns about misplaced trust and exploitation of such trust are also relevant, and ought to be taken into account, when considering why the therapeutic misconception matters ethically.

摘要

治疗性误解被视为一个伦理问题,因为未能区分参与研究的目的与接受常规治疗的目的可能会严重损害研究受试者的知情同意。因此,关于治疗性误解问题的大多数理论和实证研究都旨在评估这种混淆是否以及在多大程度上使受试者的同意无效。我们在此认为,这种对知情同意理解部分的关注虽然重要,但可能过于狭隘,无法涵盖治疗性误解的伦理复杂性。我们表明,当考虑治疗性误解为何在伦理上重要时,对错误信任以及对这种信任的利用的担忧也很重要,应该予以考虑。

相似文献

1
Beyond informed consent: the therapeutic misconception and trust.超越知情同意:治疗性误解与信任。
J Med Ethics. 2008 Mar;34(3):202-5. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.019406.
2
Trust, The fragile foundation of contemporary biomedical research.信任,当代生物医学研究的脆弱基石。
Hastings Cent Rep. 1996 Sep-Oct;26(5):25-9.
3
The therapeutic misconception, beneficence, and respect.治疗性误解、善行与尊重。
Account Res. 2001;8(4):331-48. doi: 10.1080/08989620108573984.
4
Eschewing definitions of the therapeutic misconception: a family resemblance analysis.避开治疗性误解的定义:一种家族相似性分析
J Med Philos. 2011 Jun;36(3):296-320. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhr014. Epub 2011 May 23.
5
Making research a requirement of treatment: why we should sometimes let doctors pressure patients to participate in research.将研究作为治疗的一项要求:为何我们有时应允许医生向患者施压以使其参与研究。
Hastings Cent Rep. 2005 Sep-Oct;35(5):20-8.
6
Rethinking research ethics.重新思考研究伦理。
Am J Bioeth. 2005 Winter;5(1):7-28. doi: 10.1080/15265160590900678.
7
Proposing modesty for informed consent.提出适度的知情同意。
Soc Sci Med. 2007 Dec;65(11):2284-95. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.006. Epub 2007 Sep 19.
8
Translational research beyond approval: a two-stage ethics review.获批后的转化研究:两阶段伦理审查
Am J Bioeth. 2010 Aug;10(8):W1-3. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2010.500199.
9
Physician duties in the conduct of human subject research.医生在人体研究中的职责。
Account Res. 2001;8(4):349-75. doi: 10.1080/08989620108573985.
10
Does it matter whether investigators intend to benefit research subjects?研究者是否有意使研究对象受益重要吗?
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2010 Dec;20(4):353-70.

引用本文的文献

1
Informed consent in genetic and genomic studies in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review of bioethical issues.撒哈拉以南非洲地区基因与基因组研究中的知情同意:生物伦理问题的系统综述
BMC Med Ethics. 2025 Jul 19;26(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s12910-025-01170-z.
2
Towards an understanding of the ethics of electronic consent in clinical trials.探讨临床试验中电子知情同意伦理问题。
Trials. 2024 Aug 16;25(1):545. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08330-3.
3
Patient, Relative and Staff Experiences of Clinical Trial Participation in Neurooncology: "Maybe You Can Also Show the Positive, No Matter How It Ends".
神经肿瘤学临床试验中患者、家属及工作人员的参与体验:“无论结局如何,或许你也能展现积极的一面”
Cancer Manag Res. 2024 Jun 21;16:663-676. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S447407. eCollection 2024.
4
Epistemic Trust in Scientific Experts: A Moral Dimension.科学专家的认知信任:一个道德维度。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2024 May 24;30(3):21. doi: 10.1007/s11948-024-00489-x.
5
Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis.参与者对临床试验中知情同意的理解:系统评价和更新的荟萃分析。
PLoS One. 2024 Jan 2;19(1):e0295784. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295784. eCollection 2024.
6
What's trust got to do with research: why not accountability?信任与研究有何关系:为何不是问责制?
Front Res Metr Anal. 2023 Nov 13;8:1237742. doi: 10.3389/frma.2023.1237742. eCollection 2023.
7
Perceptions about and reasons for participation in research bronchoscopy in Uganda: A qualitative analysis.乌干达研究性支气管镜检查的认知和参与原因:定性分析。
PLoS One. 2023 Oct 20;18(10):e0293174. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293174. eCollection 2023.
8
Surrogate Informed Consent: A Qualitative Analysis of Surrogate Decision Makers' Perspectives.代理知情同意:对代理决策人观点的定性分析。
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2021 Jul;18(7):1185-1190. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202007-851OC.
9
"I Want to Do It, But I Want to Make Sure That I Do It Right." Views of Patients with Parkinson's Disease Regarding Early Stem Cell Clinical Trial Participation.“我想参与,但我希望确保我做对了。”帕金森病患者对早期干细胞临床试验参与的看法。
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2020 Jul-Sep;11(3):160-171. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2020.1775721. Epub 2020 Jun 9.
10
Stakeholder views regarding ethical issues in the design and conduct of pragmatic trials: study protocol.利益相关者对实用试验设计与实施中伦理问题的看法:研究方案
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Nov 20;19(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0332-z.