Does Honouring Assent Really Respect the Preferences and Values of Research Participants with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities?

IF 2.1 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Mary McBride, Abraham Graber
{"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.

尊重同意真的尊重智力和发育障碍研究参与者的偏好和价值观吗?
在研究背景下,智力和发育障碍(IDD)患者的代表同意和个人同意程序旨在保护这些个体免受参与者和研究人员之间权力不平衡的影响。然而,这些保护措施往往导致排他性做法,使缺碘症患者没有机会从研究中获得与其他较不脆弱人群相同的利益。目前关于研究伦理的对话严重强调依赖参与者的同意作为排他性研究实践的解决方案,因为获得同意最好地尊重参与者的偏好和价值观。针对这些论点,我们提出,在研究中,同意在多大程度上可以作为对IDD患者问题的补救措施尚不清楚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
67
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书