Hostname: page-component-546b4f848f-q5mmw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-06-01T23:53:44.592Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Beliefs, Hopes, and Deal Breakers in Research Consent: Dissecting Mathews, Fins, and Racine on the Therapeutic Misconception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2021


Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Departments and Columns
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


“Dissecting Bioethics,” edited by Tuija Takala and Matti Häyry, welcomes contributions on the conceptual and theoretical dimensions of bioethics. The department is dedicated to the idea that words defined by bioethicists and others should not be allowed to imprison people’s actual concerns, emotions, and thoughts. Papers that expose the many meanings of a concept, describe the different readings of a moral doctrine, or provide an alternative angle to seemingly self-evident issues are particularly appreciated. To submit a paper or to discuss a suitable topic, contact Matti Häyry at and Tuija Takala at

Acknowledgement: This paper was originally given as a presentation to the Department of Philosophy and History of Ideas at Aarhus University in September 2019.



1. Mathews, DJH, Fins, JJ, Racine, E. The therapeutic “mis”conception: An examination of its normative assumptions and a call for its revision. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2018;27(1):154–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Miller, M. Phase I cancer trials: A collusion of misunderstanding. Hastings Center Report 2000;30(4):3443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Horng, S, Grady, C. Misunderstanding in clinical research: Distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, and therapeutic optimism. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2003;25(1):11–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. See note 1, Mathews et al. 2018, at 155.

5. Cf. Appelbaum, PS, Roth, LH, Lidz, C. The therapeutic misconception: Informed consent in psychiatric research. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 1982;5(34):319–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Cf. Perry, J, Wohlke, S. Dealing with misconception in biomedical research. Journal of Empirical Research in Human Research Ethics 2019;14(5):428–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. See note 1, Mathews et al. 2018, at 156.

8. Jonas, H. Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. Daedalus 1969;98(2):236.Google Scholar

9. See note 1, Mathews et al. 2018, at 157.

10. See note 1, Mathews et al. 2018, at 156.

11. See note 1, Mathews et al. 2018, at 156.

12. See note 1, Mathews et al. 2018, at 156.

13. See note 1, Mathews et al. 2018, at 160.

14. See note 1, Mathews et al. 2018, at 160.

15. Cf. Fisher, CB, Wallace, SA. Through the community looking glass: Reevaluating the ethical and policy implications of research on adolescent risk and sociopathology. Ethics and Behavior 2000;10(2):99118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

16. Cf. Joffe, S, Weeks, JC. Views of American oncologists about the purposes of clinical trials. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2002;94(24):1847–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

17. See note 1, Mathews et al. 2018, at 160.

18. See note 1, Mathews et al. 2018, at 155.

19. See note 3, Horng, Grady 2003, at 12.

20. See note 3, Horng, Grady 2003, at 12 (emphasis theirs).

21. Dougherty, T. Sex, lies, and consent. Ethics 2013;123(4):719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. See note 21, Dougherty 2013, at 740.