{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024288107202680067, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.128205128205129, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Informed well-considered consent ('informed consent'): an end or a means?].

Since World War II, all sorts of protective measures have been taken for people who receive medical care or who are involved in scientific research. More and more, informed consent has become the standard. In the field of experimental therapeutical research, informed consent is still a controversial subject; the individual person's interests versus general interests. But informed consent appears to have become such an absolute prerequisite for all types of observational research that the future of epidemiological research based on existing data is threatened. According to both the Declaration of Helsinki and the Dutch Law for Protection of Persons, it is possible to omit asking individual informed consent under certain circumstances. Permission for research could then be given by a supervisory board or a medical-ethical commission. After all, informed consent was never meant to be a goal of its own, but a means for self-protection and securing the right to autonomy. In situations where this right is curbed for other reasons, it appears that insisting on informed consent misses its target completely.