معنی Abstract The biobank consent debate is one with deeply held convictions on both the ‘broad’ and ‘specific’ side with little sign of resolution. Recently, Thomas Ploug and Soren Holm have developed an alternative to both specific and broad consent: a meta‐consent framework. The aim here is to consider whether meta‐consent provides a ‘solution’ to the biobank consent debate. We clarify what ‘meta‐consent’ actually is (arguing that the label is a misnomer and ‘consent à la carte’ is more accurate). We identify problems with Ploug and Holm’s arguments, and some challenges for metaconsent. We focus on whether there is any ethical obligation to provide consent à la carte. There may seem to be so, especially if we draw upon an unclear appeal to the ethical significance of ‘respect for autonomy’. Similarly, there might seem to be an intuitive inference from the fact that ethically legitimate research requires informed consent to the conclusion that it thereby requires consent à la carte. It is shown that this line o, معنی Aدسفقشرف Tاتث دهخدشئم رخئسثئف یثدشفث هس خئث صهفات یثثحکغ اتثکی رخئذهرفهخئس خئ دخفات فاتث ‘دقخشی’ شئی ‘سحثرهبهر’ سهیث صهفات کهففکث سهلئ خب قثسخکعفهخئپ Rثرثئفکغپ Tاتخوشس Pکخعل شئی Sخقثئ Hخکو اتشذث یثذثکخحثی شئ شکفثقئشفهذث فخ دخفات سحثرهبهر شئی دقخشی رخئسثئف: ش وثفش‐رخئسثئف بقشوثصخقمپ Tاتث شهو اتثقث هس فخ رخئسهیثق صاتثفاتثق وثفش‐رخئسثئف حقخذهیثس ش ‘سخکعفهخئ’ فخ فاتث دهخدشئم رخئسثئف یثدشفثپ Wث رکشقهبغ صاتشف ‘وثفش‐رخئسثئف’ شرفعشککغ هس (شقلعهئل فاتشف فاتث کشدثک هس ش وهسئخوثق شئی ‘رخئسثئف à کش رشقفث’ هس وخقث شررعقشفث)پ Wث هیثئفهبغ حقخدکثوس صهفات Pکخعل شئی Hخکو’س شقلعوثئفسپ شئی سخوث راتشککثئلثس بخق وثفشرخئسثئفپ Wث بخرعس خئ صاتثفاتثق فاتثقث هس شئغ ثفاتهرشک خدکهلشفهخئ فخ حقخذهیث رخئسثئف à کش رشقفثپ Tاتثقث وشغ سثثو فخ دث سخپ ثسحثرهشککغ هب صث یقشص عحخئ شئ عئرکثشق شححثشک فخ فاتث ثفاتهرشک سهلئهبهرشئرث خب ‘قثسحثرف بخق شعفخئخوغ’پ Sهوهکشقکغپ فاتثقث وهلاتف سثثو فخ دث شئ هئفعهفهذث هئبثقثئرث بقخو فاتث بشرف فاتشف ثفاتهرشککغ کثلهفهوشفث قثسثشقرات قثضعهقثس هئبخقوثی رخئسثئف فخ فاتث رخئرکعسهخئ فاتشف هف فاتثقثدغ قثضعهقثس رخئسثئف à کش رشقفثپ Iف هس ساتخصئ فاتشف فاتهس کهئث خ, معنی Abstract The biobank consent debate is one with deeply held convictions on both the ‘broad’ and ‘specific’ side with little sign of resolution, Recently, Thomas Ploug and Soren Holm have developed an alternative to both specific and broad consent: a meta‐consent framework, The aim here is to consider whether meta‐consent provides a ‘solution’ to the biobank consent debate, We clarify what ‘meta‐consent’ actually is (arguing that the label is a misnomer and ‘consent à la carte’ is more accurate), We identify problems with Ploug and Holm’s arguments, and some challenges for metaconsent, We focus on whether there is any ethical obligation to provide consent à la carte, There may seem to be so, especially if we draw upon an unclear appeal to the ethical significance of ‘respect for autonomy’, Similarly, there might seem to be an intuitive inference from the fact that ethically legitimate research requires informed consent to the conclusion that it thereby requires consent à la carte, It is shown that this line o, معنی اصطلاح Abstract The biobank consent debate is one with deeply held convictions on both the ‘broad’ and ‘specific’ side with little sign of resolution. Recently, Thomas Ploug and Soren Holm have developed an alternative to both specific and broad consent: a meta‐consent framework. The aim here is to consider whether meta‐consent provides a ‘solution’ to the biobank consent debate. We clarify what ‘meta‐consent’ actually is (arguing that the label is a misnomer and ‘consent à la carte’ is more accurate). We identify problems with Ploug and Holm’s arguments, and some challenges for metaconsent. We focus on whether there is any ethical obligation to provide consent à la carte. There may seem to be so, especially if we draw upon an unclear appeal to the ethical significance of ‘respect for autonomy’. Similarly, there might seem to be an intuitive inference from the fact that ethically legitimate research requires informed consent to the conclusion that it thereby requires consent à la carte. It is shown that this line o, معادل Abstract The biobank consent debate is one with deeply held convictions on both the ‘broad’ and ‘specific’ side with little sign of resolution. Recently, Thomas Ploug and Soren Holm have developed an alternative to both specific and broad consent: a meta‐consent framework. The aim here is to consider whether meta‐consent provides a ‘solution’ to the biobank consent debate. We clarify what ‘meta‐consent’ actually is (arguing that the label is a misnomer and ‘consent à la carte’ is more accurate). We identify problems with Ploug and Holm’s arguments, and some challenges for metaconsent. We focus on whether there is any ethical obligation to provide consent à la carte. There may seem to be so, especially if we draw upon an unclear appeal to the ethical significance of ‘respect for autonomy’. Similarly, there might seem to be an intuitive inference from the fact that ethically legitimate research requires informed consent to the conclusion that it thereby requires consent à la carte. It is shown that this line o, Abstract The biobank consent debate is one with deeply held convictions on both the ‘broad’ and ‘specific’ side with little sign of resolution. Recently, Thomas Ploug and Soren Holm have developed an alternative to both specific and broad consent: a meta‐consent framework. The aim here is to consider whether meta‐consent provides a ‘solution’ to the biobank consent debate. We clarify what ‘meta‐consent’ actually is (arguing that the label is a misnomer and ‘consent à la carte’ is more accurate). We identify problems with Ploug and Holm’s arguments, and some challenges for metaconsent. We focus on whether there is any ethical obligation to provide consent à la carte. There may seem to be so, especially if we draw upon an unclear appeal to the ethical significance of ‘respect for autonomy’. Similarly, there might seem to be an intuitive inference from the fact that ethically legitimate research requires informed consent to the conclusion that it thereby requires consent à la carte. It is shown that this line o چی میشه؟, Abstract The biobank consent debate is one with deeply held convictions on both the ‘broad’ and ‘specific’ side with little sign of resolution. Recently, Thomas Ploug and Soren Holm have developed an alternative to both specific and broad consent: a meta‐consent framework. The aim here is to consider whether meta‐consent provides a ‘solution’ to the biobank consent debate. We clarify what ‘meta‐consent’ actually is (arguing that the label is a misnomer and ‘consent à la carte’ is more accurate). We identify problems with Ploug and Holm’s arguments, and some challenges for metaconsent. We focus on whether there is any ethical obligation to provide consent à la carte. There may seem to be so, especially if we draw upon an unclear appeal to the ethical significance of ‘respect for autonomy’. Similarly, there might seem to be an intuitive inference from the fact that ethically legitimate research requires informed consent to the conclusion that it thereby requires consent à la carte. It is shown that this line o یعنی چی؟, Abstract The biobank consent debate is one with deeply held convictions on both the ‘broad’ and ‘specific’ side with little sign of resolution. Recently, Thomas Ploug and Soren Holm have developed an alternative to both specific and broad consent: a meta‐consent framework. The aim here is to consider whether meta‐consent provides a ‘solution’ to the biobank consent debate. We clarify what ‘meta‐consent’ actually is (arguing that the label is a misnomer and ‘consent à la carte’ is more accurate). We identify problems with Ploug and Holm’s arguments, and some challenges for metaconsent. We focus on whether there is any ethical obligation to provide consent à la carte. There may seem to be so, especially if we draw upon an unclear appeal to the ethical significance of ‘respect for autonomy’. Similarly, there might seem to be an intuitive inference from the fact that ethically legitimate research requires informed consent to the conclusion that it thereby requires consent à la carte. It is shown that this line o synonym, Abstract The biobank consent debate is one with deeply held convictions on both the ‘broad’ and ‘specific’ side with little sign of resolution. Recently, Thomas Ploug and Soren Holm have developed an alternative to both specific and broad consent: a meta‐consent framework. The aim here is to consider whether meta‐consent provides a ‘solution’ to the biobank consent debate. We clarify what ‘meta‐consent’ actually is (arguing that the label is a misnomer and ‘consent à la carte’ is more accurate). We identify problems with Ploug and Holm’s arguments, and some challenges for metaconsent. We focus on whether there is any ethical obligation to provide consent à la carte. There may seem to be so, especially if we draw upon an unclear appeal to the ethical significance of ‘respect for autonomy’. Similarly, there might seem to be an intuitive inference from the fact that ethically legitimate research requires informed consent to the conclusion that it thereby requires consent à la carte. It is shown that this line o definition,