ゲノム編集の決定版ガイド。
メニュー
ホーム 学ぶ ニュース Atlasに聞く
探索する 技術 疾患 治療法 臨床試験 企業 科学者 遺伝子 研究 研究機関
医療を超えて 農業 倫理 投資 世界地図
学ぶ・ツール まずはここから 用語集 A~Z 技術を比較する タイムライン リスト・ランキング AIエージェント ★ 保存済み API
このサイトについて 私たちについて 方法論 データソース 編集方針 お問い合わせ 免責事項

🧭 ガイドビュー
遺伝学が初めてですか? 閲覧しながら、すべての用語をわかりやすく説明します。同じページに、サポートが組み込まれています。

⚡ 専門家の見解
生物学はすでにご存知の方へ。コンテンツだけをすっきりとコンパクトに、余分な説明なしでお届けします。これがデフォルト表示です。

表示言語
ライトモード

倫理 · Clinical ethics

Consent for permanent change

What informed consent means for a treatment that cannot be stopped, reversed or withdrawn.

How this page is written The Atlas does not take a position on contested ethical questions. Each page sets out the strongest version of the arguments on each side, states what is scientifically settled and what is not, and summarises the law where it exists. Where we think a claim is factually wrong — as opposed to ethically contested — we say so and cite the evidence.

率直な問い

Consent to a drug is consent to something you can stop. Consent to a permanent gene edit is different: there is no way to undo it if you change your mind or if a problem appears in fifteen years. Add that the biology is unfamiliar, that patients are often severely ill and out of alternatives, and that follow-up commitments run for years, and ordinary consent processes are being asked to do something they were not designed for.

Informed consent for gene-editing therapy must convey permanence, incomplete long-term safety data, distinct risks of conditioning regimens where used, the practical impossibility of withdrawal after administration, and long-term follow-up obligations often lasting 15 years. Complications include therapeutic misconception in early-phase trials, the vulnerability of patients with no remaining options, assent processes for adolescents, and the difficulty of conveying probabilistic genetic information to people with varying numeracy and health literacy.

The arguments

支持する意見
  • Patients with severe disease are capable of weighing serious risk and are entitled to do so.
  • Paternalistic restriction denies autonomy to exactly the people with most at stake.
  • Consent processes for transplantation already handle permanence and serious risk.
  • Long-term registries provide the follow-up that makes future consent better informed.
批判的な意見
  • 'Informed' is hard to achieve when the mechanism is unfamiliar and long-term effects are unknown even to investigators.
  • Therapeutic misconception is well documented: early-phase participants frequently expect benefit that the trial is not designed to provide.
  • Desperation compromises voluntariness in ways consent forms do not capture.
  • Adolescents can assent but not consent, and permanent changes will outlast the parental decision by decades.

Where the science actually stands

Long-term follow-up, typically 15 years, is a standard regulatory expectation for gene-therapy products. Therapeutic misconception in early-phase trials is well documented. There is no consensus on how to convey permanence and deep uncertainty adequately, and consent processes for these therapies remain an active area of research.

Unresolved questions

  • How to convey irreversibility in a way people genuinely internalise.
  • How to handle consent for children and adolescents facing lifelong consequences.
  • What is owed to participants if a problem emerges years later.

Sources

Connected in the Atlas

Every entry on this site is linked to the others it relates to. These connections are part of the record, not a search result.