{"title":"Does Honouring Assent Really Respect the Preferences and Values of Research Participants with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities?","authors":"Mary McBride, Abraham Graber","doi":"10.1007/s11673-026-10592-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Processes of representative consent and individual assent for those with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) in the research context are intended to protect such individuals from the power imbalance between participants and researchers. However, these protections often lead to exclusionary practices, leaving those with IDD without the opportunity to reap the same benefits from research as other, less vulnerable populations. Current conversations regarding research ethics heavily emphasize relying on participant assent as the solution to exclusionary research practices, as obtaining assent best respects the preferences and values of participants. In response to such arguments, we propose that the extent to which assent serves as a remedy to issues of those with IDD in research is unclear.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-026-10592-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Processes of representative consent and individual assent for those with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) in the research context are intended to protect such individuals from the power imbalance between participants and researchers. However, these protections often lead to exclusionary practices, leaving those with IDD without the opportunity to reap the same benefits from research as other, less vulnerable populations. Current conversations regarding research ethics heavily emphasize relying on participant assent as the solution to exclusionary research practices, as obtaining assent best respects the preferences and values of participants. In response to such arguments, we propose that the extent to which assent serves as a remedy to issues of those with IDD in research is unclear.
期刊介绍:
The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following:
-philosophy-
bioethics-
economics-
social theory-
law-
public health and epidemiology-
anthropology-
psychology-
feminism-
gay and lesbian studies-
linguistics and discourse analysis-
cultural studies-
disability studies-
history-
literature and literary studies-
environmental sciences-
theology and religious studies