Confidentiality and the public interest in medical research - Will we ever get it right?

Clinical Medicine

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 219-228

  Coleman, Michel P ^b   Evans, Barry G ^a   Barrett, Geraldine ^c  

^a PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^c NONE

Author keywords

Cancer; Communicable diseases; Confidentiality; Epidemiology; Legislation; Medical research; Privacy; Professional guidance; Public health

Indexed keywords

CONFIDENTIALITY; INFORMED CONSENT; LAW; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATIENT RIGHT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIVACY; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC OPINION; REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 0037773470     PISSN: 14702118     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.3-3-219     Document Type: Review

References (86)

1. Working group to the Royal College of Physicians Committee on Ethical Issues in Medicine. Independent ethical review of studies involving personal medical records. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1994;28:439-43.
2. The Caldicott Committee. Report on the review of patient-identifiable information. London: Department of Health, London, 1997. www.doh. gov.uk/confiden/crep.htm#foreword
3. Department of Health. Protecting and using patient information: a manual for Caldicott Guardians. London: Department of Health, 1999. www.doh.gov.uk/confiden/cgmcont.htm
4. Data Protection Act 1998. c.29. www.uk-legislation.hmso.gov. uk/acts/actsl998/19980029.htm
5. Human Rights Act 1998. c.42. www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm
6. Brahams D. UK: impact of European human rights law. Lancet 2000;356:1433-4.
7. Anon. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In: Privacy and human rights 2002: an international survey of privacy laws and developments. London: EPIC and Privacy International, 2002:375-92.
8. European Parliament. Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Directive 95/46/EC, 0031-0050. http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod! CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31995L0046&model=guichett
9. Strobl J, Cave E, Walley T. Data protection legislation: interpretation and barriers to research. BMJ 2000;321:890-92.
10. O'Neill of Bengarve. Health Service Regulations 2002. Lords Hansard 2002;21 May:c746-7. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldhansrd/vo020521/text/ 20521-21.htm
11. Howe F. Health and Social Care Bill. Lords Hansard 2001;22 March:c1679-80. www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200001/ldhansrd/ vo010322/text/10322-40.htm
12. Information Commissioner (Elizabeth France). Use and disclosure of health data: guidance on the application of the Data Protection Act 1998. Wilmslow, Cheshire: Information Commission, 2002.
13. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Cancer research - a fresh look. Volume I - report and proceedings of the Committee. London: The Stationery Office, 2000. www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/ cmsctech/332/33202.htm
14. Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Privacy law and medical research. The Times, 17 May 2001:21.
15. Lord Justices Simon Brown, Aldous, Schiemann. R v Department of Health, ex parte Source Informatics Ltd. All England Law Reports [1 All ER]; 2000:786-801. London, Court of Appeal, Civil Division.
16. Evans B, Catchpole M, Mortimer P, Gregor S. Continued reporting of infections to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre: understanding the confidentiality and consent issues. J Publ Hlth Med 2003;24:233-238.
17. General Medical Council. Confidentiality: protecting and providing information. www.gmc-uk.org/n_hance/good/secret.htm, accessed 18/11/2002.
18. Northover L. Health and Social Care Bill. Lords Hansard 2001;22 March:c1685. www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200001/ldhansrd/ vo010322/text/10322-40.htm
19. BBC News. Patient secrecy rules 'preventing research'. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1339258.stm, accessed 19/5/2001.
20. Naysmith D. Health and Social Care Bill (Standing Committee E). Commons Hansard 2001;8 February:c479.
21. Turnberg L. Health and Social Care Bill. Lords Hansard 2001;26 February:c1086-8. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200001/ldhansrd/vo010226/text/ 10226-11.htm#10226-11_head0
22. Peto J. Research and privacy. The Times, 29 May 2001:13. www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,59-2001181050,00.html
23. Channel 4 News. Cancer research halted. www.channel4news.co.uk/home/20010521/story03.htm, accessed 19/5/2001.
24. Doll R, Peto R. Rights involve responsibilities for patients. BMJ 2001;322:730.
25. Al-Shahi R, Warlow C. Using patient-identifiable data for observational research and audit: over-protection could damage the public interest. BMJ 2001;321:1031-2.
26. Helliwell T. Cancer registries fear collapse. BMJ 2001;322:730.
27. Turnberg L. GMC's position on confidentiality. The Times, 6 November 2000:19.
28. Ballantyne A. Silence that could be a death sentence: the right to privacy threatens a vital register of information on cancer. The Times, 27 October 2000:22.
29. Adam D. Data protection law threatens to derail UK epidemiology studies. Nature 2001;411:509.
30. Leslie SJ, Webb DJ. GMC's guidance may inhibit research. BMJ 2001;322:1601-2.
31. Sasieni P, Cuzick J. Routine audit is an ethical requirement of screening. BMJ 2001;322:1175.
32. Kmietowicz Z. Confusion reigns as data law continues to threaten research. www.biomedcentral.com/news/20010516/03, accessed 21/1/2003.
33. Silman AJ, Macfarlane GJ. Effects of changes to Data Protection Act. Lancet 2001;357:1452.
34. Paterson ICM. Consent to cancer registration - an unnecessary burden. BMJ 2001;322:1130.
35. Traynor B. Medical research threatened by patient consent. Guardian, 12 April 2001:16. http://society.guardian.co.uk/healthandsocialcarebill/story/0,7991, 472239,00.html
36. Ellis SJ. GMC is greater threat to research than the Act. BMJ 2001;322:890.
37. Illman J. Cancer registries: should informed consent be required? J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1269-1270.
38. General Medical Council. Statement on confidentiality and cancer registries (8 November 2000). www.gmc-uk.org/news/current/cancer_registries.htm, accessed 15/5/2001.
39. General Medical Council. Revision of 'Confidentiality: protecting and providing information' (Document12b and minutes of GMC Council meeting 22 May 2001). www.gmc-uk.org, accessed 18/11/2002.
40. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Cancer research - a follow-up. London: The Stationery Office, 2002. www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmsctech/ 444/44402.htm
41. Lee M. New legislation on confidentiality: to disclose or not to disclose? MDU News, 2 October 2002:3.
42. The Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002. SI/2002/1438. www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/20021438.htm
43. Health and Social Care Act 2001. c.15. www.uk-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/20010015.htm
44. Department of Health, Section 60 support for cancer registries. Chief Executive Bulletin 2002;20-26 September 2002: Item 5. www.doh.gov.uk/cebulletin26september.htm#5
45. General Medical Council. Confidentiality - review of GMC guidance and development of Department of Health Code of Practice. (para 11 and Annex A in document 15a for GMC Council meeting 5 Nov 2002). www.gmc-uk.org, accessed 18/11/2002.
46. Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002 - Motion for Approval. Lords Hansard 2002;21 May: c725-8. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds02/text/ 20521-17.htm#20521-17_d10
47. Draft Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002. Commons Hansard 2002;15 May:c3-c30. www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmstand/deleg3/ st020515/20515s01.htm
48. Information Policy Unit. Patient Information Advisory Group minutes. www.doh.gov.uk/ipu/confiden/index1.htm
49. Coleman MP, Muir CS, Ménégoz F. Confidentiality in the cancer registry. Br J Cancer 1992;66:1138-49.
50. 8Denham J. Health and Social Care Bill (Standing Committee E). Commons Hansard 2001;8 February:c480.
51. Anon. Patient confidentiality: who's looking at your notes? Economist, 1 June 2002:32.
52. Anon. Medical records: whose file is it anyway? Economist, 1 June 2002:14.
53. Dillon J. Ministers to snoop on patients' private medical records. Independent on Sunday, 5 May 2002:1. www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=292074
54. Meikle J. Bodies of evidence: clinical information is confidential. Or is it? Guardian, 7 September 2002:10. www.guardian.co.uk/bigbrother/privacy/yourlife/story/0,12384,785836,00.html
55. Anon. Excess powers. Financial Times, 3 May 2001:18.
56. Browne A. Lives ruined as NHS leaks patients' notes. Observer, 25 June 2000. www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,336271,00.html
57. Anon. Fears over disclosure of private medical records. www. ananova.com./yournews/story/sm_581583.html, accessed 18/11/2002.
58. Johnston L. Spies in the surgery. Sunday Express, 6 May 2001:32.
59. Carr-Brown J. Milburn demands patients' case notes from doctors. Sunday Times, 5 May 2002:7.
60. Kite M. Starstruck taxmen caught selling celebrity secrets. The Times, 16 January 2003:1. www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,173-544629,00.html?gavalidate
61. Millar S. Europe votes to end data privacy: law will allow police to spy on phone and net traffic. Guardian, 31 May 2002:1.
62. Norton-Taylor R, Millar S. Privacy fear over plan to store email. Guardian, 20 August 2002:1. www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,777526,00.html
63. Institute of Public Policy Research. Ruled by recluses: privacy, journalists and the media after the Human Rights Act. London: Institute of Public Policy Research, 2002.
64. Greenberg DS. US Senate weighs proposal on medical privacy. Lancet 2002;359:1585.
65. Medical Research Council. Personal information in medical research. London: Medical Research Council, 2000.
66. Ministry of Youth, Family and Health. Cancer register - cancer registration. The attitudes and readiness of resident citizens of the Federal Republic. Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany: Ministry of Youth, Family and Health, 1983.
67. Gavin AT, Fitzpatrick D, Middleton RJ, Coleman MP. Patients' denial of disease may pose difficulty for achieving informed consent. BMJ 2002;324:974.
68. Brewster D, Coleman MP, Forman D, Roche M. Cancer information under threat: the case for legislation. Ann Oncol 2001;12:145-7.
69. Department of Health. Human bodies, human choices: the law on human organs and tissue in England and Wales. A consultation report. London: Department of Health, 2000.
70. Information Policy Unit. Building the information core: protecting and using confidential patient information - a strategy for the NHS. London: Department of Health, 2001.
71. Lowrance WW. Learning from experience: privacy and the secondary use of data in health research. London: Nuffield Trust, 2002.
72. Wald NJ. Use of personal medical records for research purposes. BMJ 1994;309:1422-4.
73. Wald NJ, Law M. The threat to the use of records and stored blood samples in medical screening research. J Med Screening 2001;8:59-60.
74. Cox P. Obtaining individual consent may hinder studies (reply to Using patient identifiable data without consent). BMJ 2001;322:858.
75. Roberts L, Wilson S. Argument for consent may invalidate research and stigmatise some patients (reply to Using patient identifiable data without consent). BMJ 2001;322:858.
76. Al-Shahi R, Warlow C. Using patient identifiable data without consent - authors' reply. BMJ 2001;322:859.
77. Bahadur G, Whelan J, Ralph D, Hindmarsh P. Gaining consent to freeze spermatozoa from adolescents with cancer: legal, ethical and practical aspects. Human Reprod 2001;16:188-93.
78. Dudeck J. Informed consent for cancer registration. Lancet Oncol 2001;2:8-9.
79. Furness P. Over-reaction is damaging research. Daily Telegraph, 24 December 2002:19. www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2002%2F12%2F24% 2Fdt2401.xml
80. Cooper Y. Cancer research - a fresh look. Minutes of evidence, 14 June 2000, Q.531. www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmsctech/ 332/0061403.htm
81. Coleman MP. Opinion: A matter of privacy. Financial Times, 28 May 2001. http://news.ft.com
82. Lowrance WW. Privacy and health research. A report to the US Secretary of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC: DHHS, 1997.
83. Wadham J. Big brother: private lives. Guardian, 14 September 2002:22.
84. Raab C. Privacy in the public interest. Guardian, 21 September 2002:16. www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4503467,00.html
85. Verity C, Nicoll A. Consent, confidentiality, and the threat to public health surveillance. BMJ 2002;324:1210-13.
86. Manning D. Consent, confidentiality, and the threat to public health surveillance - Comment: Don't waive consent lightly - involve the public. BMJ 2002;324:1213.