A Biocultural Ethics Approach 61
values, worldviews and systems involved. The following sections explore how
national research ethics policies and guidelines in Canada have evolved over
the last two decades – and continue to evolve – to create more hospitable and
productive space for respectful and equitable research relations with Indigenous
peoples in Canada. The principle of consent is explored from this approach, to
offer an illustrative example of how a biocultural ethics lens can complement
biocultural rights-based approaches in protecting culture and environment. The
objective of this chapter is to encourage deeper consideration of what it means
to be in “right relationships”, which Mohawk ethics policy expert Dr. Marlene
Brant-Castellano describes as an ethos that is “embodied in First Nation, Inuit
and Métis traditional teachings” (Brant Castellano, 2008, p. 23).
Brief History of Canadian Ethics Policies and Guidelines with
Focus on Consent
Consent is an ethical and legal principle that is rooted in respect for individual
autonomy and autonomous choice – the notion that individuals have a right
to make informed choices of their own free will, consistent with their values
and preferences. Consent is embedded in both law and ethics, having evolved
from untenable and inhumane historical medical treatment, medical research
and social science research involving humans. The concept of “voluntary consent” emerged in biomedical research ethics in the 1940s (i.e. Nuremburg Code,
1947)
5 in response to human atrocities committed against inmates of concentration camps by Nazi scientists in the name of research. As a result, consent was
originally conceived in research ethics in reference to protection of individuals from physical harm, but has increasingly been extended to collective and
non-physical contexts.
Consent as FPIC
Consent has been articulated in ethical and legal realms in a diversity of nuanced
ways over the years, such as “voluntary consent”, “informed consent”, “prior
informed consent” and most notably in UNDRIP as “free, prior, informed
consent” drawing attention to three important qualitative dimensions:
Free – The choice must be freely and voluntarily made, without any inducement, coercion, intimidation or manipulation involved in giving consent,
and without penalty for not giving consent.
Prior – The choice to participate is made sufficiently prior to starting the
proposed activity. Adequate time and opportunity to understand the information provided and enable processes to decide on participation are required.
Informed – To be meaningful and valid, the choice must be informed. An
informed choice is one that is based on as complete an understanding as
is reasonably possible of the nature, purpose, duration, procedures and
values, worldviews and systems involved. The following sections explore how
national research ethics policies and guidelines in Canada have evolved over
the last two decades – and continue to evolve – to create more hospitable and
productive space for respectful and equitable research relations with Indigenous
peoples in Canada. The principle of consent is explored from this approach, to
offer an illustrative example of how a biocultural ethics lens can complement
biocultural rights-based approaches in protecting culture and environment. The
objective of this chapter is to encourage deeper consideration of what it means
to be in “right relationships”, which Mohawk ethics policy expert Dr. Marlene
Brant-Castellano describes as an ethos that is “embodied in First Nation, Inuit
and Métis traditional teachings” (Brant Castellano, 2008, p. 23).
Brief History of Canadian Ethics Policies and Guidelines with
Focus on Consent
Consent is an ethical and legal principle that is rooted in respect for individual
autonomy and autonomous choice – the notion that individuals have a right
to make informed choices of their own free will, consistent with their values
and preferences. Consent is embedded in both law and ethics, having evolved
from untenable and inhumane historical medical treatment, medical research
and social science research involving humans. The concept of “voluntary consent” emerged in biomedical research ethics in the 1940s (i.e. Nuremburg Code,
1947)
5 in response to human atrocities committed against inmates of concentration camps by Nazi scientists in the name of research. As a result, consent was
originally conceived in research ethics in reference to protection of individuals from physical harm, but has increasingly been extended to collective and
non-physical contexts.
Consent as FPIC
Consent has been articulated in ethical and legal realms in a diversity of nuanced
ways over the years, such as “voluntary consent”, “informed consent”, “prior
informed consent” and most notably in UNDRIP as “free, prior, informed
consent” drawing attention to three important qualitative dimensions:
Free – The choice must be freely and voluntarily made, without any inducement, coercion, intimidation or manipulation involved in giving consent,
and without penalty for not giving consent.
Prior – The choice to participate is made sufficiently prior to starting the
proposed activity. Adequate time and opportunity to understand the information provided and enable processes to decide on participation are required.
Informed – To be meaningful and valid, the choice must be informed. An
informed choice is one that is based on as complete an understanding as
is reasonably possible of the nature, purpose, duration, procedures and