유전자 편집 완벽 가이드.
메뉴
배우기 뉴스 아틀라스에 질문하기
둘러보기 기술들 질환 치료법들 임상시험 기업 과학자들 유전자 연구 기관
의학을 넘어서 농업 윤리 투자 세계 지도
배우기 & 도구 여기서 시작하세요 용어집 A–Z 기술 비교 타임라인 목록 & 순위 AI 에이전트 ★ 저장됨 API
소개 소개 방법론 데이터 출처 편집 방침 문의 면책 조항

🧭 안내 보기
유전학이 처음이신가요? 둘러보시는 동안 모든 용어를 쉬운 말로 설명해 드립니다. 도움말이 내장된 동일한 페이지입니다.

⚡ 전문가 견해
생물학은 이미 알고 계시죠. 내용만 — 깔끔하고 간결하게, 추가 설명 없이. 기본 보기입니다.

인터페이스 언어
라이트 모드

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What informed consent means for a treatment that cannot be stopped, reversed or withdrawn.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

핵심 질문

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

지지자들의 주장
  • 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.
비판론자들의 주장
  • '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.