Ethical standards for research biobank donation Dove, Edward S; Prainsack, Barbara
JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association,
2015-Apr-21, Letnik:
313, Številka:
15
Journal Article
Abstract
Draft regulatory guidance suggests that if the processing of a child’s personal data begins with the consent of a parent, then there is a need to find and defend an enduring consent through ...the child’s growing capacity and on to their maturity. We consider the implications for health research of the UK Information Commissioner’s Office’s (ICO) suggestion that the relevant test for maturity is the Gillick test, originally developed in the context of medical treatment. Noting the significance of the welfare principle to this test, we examine the implications for the responsibilities of a parent to act as proxy for their child. We argue, contrary to draft ICO guidance, that a data controller might legitimately continue to rely upon parental consent as a legal basis for processing after a child is old enough to provide her own consent. Nevertheless, we conclude that data controllers should develop strategies to seek fresh consent from children as soon as practicable after the data controller has reason to believe they are mature enough to consent independently. Techniques for effective communication, recommended to address challenges associated with Big Data analytics, might have a role here in addressing the dynamic relationship between data subject and processing. Ultimately, we suggest that fair and lawful processing of a child’s data will be dependent upon data controllers taking seriously the truism that consent is ongoing, rather than a one-time event: the core associated responsibility is to continue to communicate with a data subject regarding the processing of personal data.
Governments, funding bodies, institutions, and publishers have developed a number of strategies to encourage researchers to facilitate access to datasets. The rationale behind this approach is that ...this will bring a number of benefits and enable advances in healthcare and medicine by allowing the maximum returns from the investment in research, as well as reducing waste and promoting transparency. As this approach gains momentum, these data-sharing practices have implications for many kinds of research as they become standard practice across the world.
The governance frameworks that have been developed to support biomedical research are not well equipped to deal with the complexities of international data sharing. This system is nationally based and is dependent upon expert committees for oversight and compliance, which has often led to piece-meal decision-making. This system tends to perpetuate inequalities by obscuring the contributions and the important role of different data providers along the data stream, whether they be low- or middle-income country researchers, patients, research participants, groups, or communities. As research and data-sharing activities are largely publicly funded, there is a strong moral argument for including the people who provide the data in decision-making and to develop governance systems for their continued participation.
We recommend that governance of science becomes more transparent, representative, and responsive to the voices of many constituencies by conducting public consultations about data-sharing addressing issues of access and use; including all data providers in decision-making about the use and sharing of data along the whole of the data stream; and using digital technologies to encourage accessibility, transparency, and accountability. We anticipate that this approach could enhance the legitimacy of the research process, generate insights that may otherwise be overlooked or ignored, and help to bring valuable perspectives into the decision-making around international data sharing.
As the sustained and devastating extent of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic becomes apparent, a key focus of public scrutiny in the UK has centred on the novel legal and regulatory ...measures introduced in response to the virus. When those measures were first implemented in March 2020 by the UK Government, it was thought that human rights obligations would limit excesses of governmental action and that the public had more to fear from unwarranted intrusion into civil liberties. However, within the first year of the pandemic’s devastation in the UK, a different picture has emerged: rather than through action, it is governmental
inaction
that has given rise to greater human rights concerns. The UK Government has been roundly criticized for its inadequate response, including missteps in decision-making, delayed implementation and poor enforcement of lockdown measures, abandonment of testing, shortages of critical resources and inadequate test and trace methods. In this article, we analyse the UK Government’s missteps and compare them with published international guidance; we also contrast the UK’s decisions with those taken by several other countries (including the devolved administrations within the UK) to understand how its actions and inactions have contributed to unfavourable outcomes. Using an analytical perspective that demonstrates how human rights are both a protection from the power of the state and a requirement that governmental powers are used to protect the lives, health and wellbeing of citizens, we argue that the UK Government’s failure to exercise their powers competently allowed the virus to spread without ensuring the country had the means to manage a high case load. This abject failure has led to one of the highest rates of deaths per capita worldwide. We offer several lessons that can be learnt from this unfortunate, but preventable, situation.
The data that put the 'evidence' into 'evidence-based medicine' are central to developments in public health, primary and hospital care. A fundamental challenge is to site such data in repositories ...that can easily be accessed under appropriate technical and governance controls which are effectively audited and are viewed as trustworthy by diverse stakeholders. This demands socio-technical solutions that may easily become enmeshed in protracted debate and controversy as they encounter the norms, values, expectations and concerns of diverse stakeholders. In this context, the development of what are called 'Data Safe Havens' has been crucial. Unfortunately, the origins and evolution of the term have led to a range of different definitions being assumed by different groups. There is, however, an intuitively meaningful interpretation that is often assumed by those who have not previously encountered the term: a repository in which useful but potentially sensitive data may be kept securely under governance and informatics systems that are fit-for-purpose and appropriately tailored to the nature of the data being maintained, and may be accessed and utilized by legitimate users undertaking work and research contributing to biomedicine, health and/or to ongoing development of healthcare systems.
This review explores a fundamental question: 'what are the specific criteria that ought reasonably to be met by a data repository if it is to be seen as consistent with this interpretation and viewed as worthy of being accorded the status of 'Data Safe Haven' by key stakeholders'? We propose 12 such criteria.
paul.burton@bristol.ac.uk.
Many in the biomedical research community have expressed concern with the draft General Data Protection Regulation, as amended by a European Parliament Committee in 2013 and endorsed by the ...Parliament in March, 2014.1 Criticism has especially targeted Article 81, which would enable member states to legislate for an exemption from the need for specific, explicit consent to research use of health data only where research serves "a high public interest" and the data are anonymised or pseudonymised "under the highest technical standards".
PDF
