Abstract
Purpose: To survey the attitudes of the general public in Sweden to biobank research and to discuss the findings in the light of some well-known ethical principles.
Methods: A questionnaire was used to survey the opinions of the general public in Sweden, and an ethical analysis (using the principles of autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice) was performed to discuss the possible conditions of such research.
Findings: Between 3 and 9% answered that they did not want their samples to be collected and stored in a biobank. Many respondents required information about the purpose of the research and wanted to be able to consent or refuse. About one third of the respondents said they would have answered differently if financial gain was involved and those who commented indicated a more negative attitude. The principle of autonomy maintains that the right to self-determination should be respected, and the principles of non-maleficence and beneficence that the probable harms and benefits resulting from a particular project by using samples from a biobank should be balanced. The general public disagree about how these principles are to be balanced.
Interpretation: In the light of the findings different interpretations of the situation as well as possible alternatives are discussed in this paper.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
T.L. Beauchamp J.F. Childress (2001) Principles of Biomedical Ethics EditionNumber5 Oxford University Press Oxford
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies: 1998. Ethical Aspects of Human Tissue Banking. Opinion No. 11, Brussels
R. Gillon (1994) Principles of Health Care Ethics John Wiley & Sons Chichester
G. Hermerén (1999) ArticleTitle‘Neonatal Screening: Ethical Aspects’ Acta Paediatrica, Supp. 432 99–103
G. Hermerén (2000) ‘Priorities and Research Allocation: Problems, Principles and Procedure’ L. Vahlne Lotterhäll (Eds) Health Care Priorities. Ethical, Legal and Economic Perspectives Santérus Stockholm 11–30
Kant, I.: 1785, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Hamburg
Locke, J.: 1690, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London
Mill, J.S.: 1861, Utilitarianism. London
Nationaler Ethikrat 2004, Biobanken für Forschung. Stellungsnahme.Berlin
T. Nilstun (1990) ‘Public Health Measures with HIV Infection. A Model for Identification and Analysis of Ethical Conflicts’ P. Allebeck B. Jansson (Eds) Ethics in Medicine: Individual Integrity Versus Demands of Society Raven Press New York 203–213
T. Nilstun G. Melltorp G. Hermerén (2000) ArticleTitle‘Surveys on Attitudes to Active Euthanasia: To Draw Normative Conclusions is Problematic’ Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 28 111–116 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M%2FkvV2hsA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10954137
T. Nilstun P. Sjökvist (2001) ArticleTitle‘From Fact to Recommendation: Explicit Value Premises Make the Conclusions More Convincing’ Journal of Internal Medicine 249 121–125 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.0954-6820.2000.00774.x Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M3gslSrsg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11258361
Nuffield Council on Bioethics: 1995, Human Tissue: Ethical and Legal Issues. London
J. Rawls (1971) A Theory of Justice Oxford University Press London, Oxford, New York
P. Singer (1979) Practical Ethics Cambridge University Press Cambridge
W. Sinnott-Armstrong (1988) Moral Dilemmas Basil Blackwell Oxford
B. Stegmayr K. Asplund (2002) ArticleTitle‘Informed Consent for Genetic Research on Blood Stored for More Than a Decade: A Population Based Study’ British Medical Journal 325 634–635 Occurrence Handle12242175
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nilstun, T., Hermerén, G. Human Tissue Samples and Ethics. Med Health Care Philos 9, 81–86 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-005-7984-4
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-005-7984-4