Implications of data protection legislation for family history

British Medical Journal

Volumn 332, Issue 7536, 2006, Pages 299-301

  Lucassen, Anneke ^a   Parker, Michael ^b   Wheeler, Robert ^c  

^a PRINCESS ANNE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL SOUTHAMPTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CANCER RISK; CASE REPORT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; GENE MUTATION; GENETIC DISORDER; GENETIC RISK; GENETIC SERVICE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; INFORMATION STORAGE; INFORMED CONSENT; LAW; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RECORD; NOTE; PATIENT INFORMATION; PREVENTIVE MEDICINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRIVACY;

GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; LEGAL APPROACH;

CONFIDENTIALITY; FAMILY; HUMANS; MEDICAL HISTORY TAKING; MEDICAL RECORDS; PEDIGREE; PREVENTIVE MEDICINE;

EID: 32544443960     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.332.7536.299     Document Type: Note

References (16)

1. Botkin JR, McMahon WM, Smith KR, Nash JE. Privacy and confidentiality in the publication of pedigrees: a survey of investigators and biomedical journals. JAMA 1998;279:1808-12.
2. Parker M, Lucassen AM. Genetic information: a joint account? BMJ 2004;329:165-7.
3. Lucassen A, Parker M. Confidentiality and serious harm in genetics-preserving the confidentiality of one patient and preventing harm to relatives. Eur J Hum Genet 2004;12:93-7.
4. Schedule 3. Data Protection Act 1998. London: Stationery Office, 1998.
5. Joint Committee on Medical Genetics. Consent and confidentiality. London: British Society for Human Genetics, Royal College of Pathologists, Royal College of Physicians (in press).
6. Kerr B, Foulkes WD, Cade D, Hadfield L, Hopwood P, Serruya C, et al. False family history of breast cancer in the family cancer clinic. Eur J Surg Oncol 1998;24:275-9.
7. Douglas FS, O'Dair LC, Robinson M, Evans DG, Lynch SA. The accuracy of diagnoses as reported in families with cancer: a retrospective study. J Med Genet 1999;36:309-12.
8. Council of Europe. Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1997.
9. Department of Health. Confidentiality: NHS code of practice. London: DoH, 2003.
10. Pate v Threlkel, 661 So2d. 278 (Fla 1995).
11. Safer v Pack, 677 A. 2d 1188, 683 A 2d 1163 (NJ 1996).
12. Laurance J. A family secret... that could be a killer. Independent 2005 May 10.
13. Newson AJ, Humphries SE. Cascade testing in familial hypercholesterolaemia: how should family members be contacted? Eur J Hum Genet 2005;13:401-8.
14. Information Commissioner. Use and disclosure of medical data-guidance on the application of the Data Protection Act 1998. In: Eckstein S, ed. Manual for research ethics committees. 6th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
15. Illman J. Cancer registries: should informed consent be required? J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1269-70.
16. Section 60. Health and Social Care Act 2001. London: Stationery Office, 2001.