Spruit Shannon Lydia, van de Poel Ibo, Doorn Neelke
Department of Values, Technology and Innovation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Nanoethics. 2016;10:123-138. doi: 10.1007/s11569-016-0262-5. Epub 2016 May 24.
In recent years, informed consent has been suggested as a way to deal with risks posed by engineered nanomaterials. We argue that while we can learn from experiences with informed consent in treatment and research contexts, we should be aware that informed consent traditionally pertains to certain features of the relationships between doctors and patients and researchers and research participants, rather than those between producers and consumers and employers and employees, which are more prominent in the case of engineered nanomaterials. To better understand these differences, we identify three major relational factors that influence whether valid informed consent is obtainable, namely dependency, personal proximity, and existence of shared interests. We show that each type of relationship offers different opportunities for reflection and therefore poses distinct challenges for obtaining valid informed consent. Our analysis offers a systematic understanding of the possibilities for attaining informed consent in the context of nanomaterial risks and makes clear that measures or regulations to improve the obtainment of informed consent should be attuned to the specific interpersonal relations to which it is supposed to apply.
近年来,有人建议将知情同意作为应对工程纳米材料所带来风险的一种方式。我们认为,虽然我们可以从治疗和研究背景下的知情同意经验中学习,但我们应该意识到,传统上知情同意适用于医生与患者、研究人员与研究参与者之间关系的某些特征,而非生产者与消费者、雇主与雇员之间关系的特征,而在工程纳米材料的情况下,后一种关系更为突出。为了更好地理解这些差异,我们确定了影响是否能够获得有效知情同意的三个主要关系因素,即依赖性、个人亲近程度和共同利益的存在。我们表明,每种关系类型都提供了不同的反思机会,因此在获得有效知情同意方面也带来了独特的挑战。我们的分析提供了对在纳米材料风险背景下获得知情同意可能性的系统理解,并明确指出,旨在改善知情同意获取情况的措施或规定应与它所适用的特定人际关系相协调。