Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Oct 3;15(3):289-300.
doi: 10.1093/phe/phac023. eCollection 2022 Nov.

Informed Decision-Making and Capabilities in Population-based Cancer Screening

Affiliations

Informed Decision-Making and Capabilities in Population-based Cancer Screening

Ineke L L E Bolt et al. Public Health Ethics. .

Abstract

Informed decision-making (IDM) is considered an important ethical and legal requirement for population-based screening. Governments offering such screening have a duty to enable invitees to make informed decisions regarding participation. Various views exist on how to define and measure IDM in different screening programmes. In this paper we first address the question which components should be part of IDM in the context of cancer screening. Departing from two diverging interpretations of the value of autonomy-as a right and as an ideal-we describe how this value is operationalized in the practice of informed consent in medicine and translate this to IDM in population-based cancer screening. Next, we specify components of IDM, which is voluntariness and the requirements of disclosure and understanding. We argue that whereas disclosure should contain all information considered relevant in order to enable authentic IDM, understanding of basic information is sufficient for a valid IDM. In the second part of the paper we apply the capability approach in order to argue for the responsibility of the government to warrant equal and real opportunities for invitees for IDM. We argue that additional conditions beyond mere provision of information are needed in order to do so.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Andermann, A., Blancquaert, I., Beauchamp, S., and Déry, V. (2008). ‘Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the Genomic Age: A Review of Screening Criteria Over the Past 40 Years’. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 86, 317–319. doi: 10.2471/BLT.07.050112 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. van den Berg, M., Timmermans, D. R., ten Kate, L. P., van Vugt, J. M. and van der Wal, G. (2006). ‘Informed Decision Making in the Context of Prenatal Screening’. Patient Education and Counseling, 63, 110–117. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.09.007 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Blumenthal-Barby, J. S. (2012). ‘Between Reason and Coercion: Ethically Permissible Influence in Health Care and Health Policy Contexts’. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 22, 345–366. - PubMed
    1. Cancer Institute NSW. Not In My Family [Online], available from: https://www.breastscreen.nsw.gov.au/campaigns/not-in-my-family [accessed 25 July 2022].
    1. DeGrazia, D., Millum, J. (2021). A Theory of Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781009026710 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources