Emerging ethical issues regarding digital health data. On the world medical association draft declaration on ethical considerations regarding health databases and biobanks

Croatian Medical Journal

Volumn 57, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 207-213

  Aicardi, Christine ^a   Del Savio, Lorenzo ^b   Dove, Edward S ^c   Lucivero, Federica ^a   Tempini, Niccolò ^d   Prainsack, Barbara ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KIEL   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANONYMIZATION; ARTICLE; BIOBANK; BIOETHICS; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; COMPUTER SECURITY; CONFIDENTIALITY; DATA BASE; DATA PROCESSING; HUMAN; INFORMATION SYSTEM; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PREDICTIVE ANALYTICS; PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP;

EID: 84971500469     PISSN: 03539504     EISSN: 13328166     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2016.57.207     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283:2701-11. Medline:10819955 doi:10.1001/ jama.283.20.2701
2. Topol EJ. The creative destruction of medicine: how the digital revolution will create better health care. 1st ed. New York: Basic Books; 2013.
3. European Commission. A Green Paper on Mobile Health. Brussels:European Commission, 2014 April 10. (Cited 2016 Jan 15). Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/green-papermobile-health-mhealth. Accessed: March 21, 2016.
4. Kallinikos J, Tempini N. Patient data as medical facts: social media practices as a foundation for medical knowledge creation. Inf Syst Res. 2014;25:817-33. doi:10.1287/isre.2014.0544
5. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The collection, linking and use of data in biomedical research and health care: ethical issues. London: The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2015. Available from:http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Biological_and_health_data_web.pdf. Accessed: March 21, 2016.
6. European Commission. Reform of the EU data protection rules. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/reform/index_en.htm. Accessed: March 21, 2016.
7. Svalastog AL, Allgaier J, Martinelli L, Gajovic S. Distortion, confusion, and impasses: could a public dialogue within Knowledge Landscapes contribute to better communication and understanding of innovative knowledge? Croat Med J. 2014;55:54-60. Medline:24577828 doi:10.3325/cmj.2014.55.54
8. Dixon P, Gellman R. The Scoring of America: secret consumer scores threaten your privacy and your future. San Diego, CA: World Privacy Forum, 2014.
9. Pasquale F. The black box society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2015.
10. Laurie GT. Challenging medical-legal norms. The role of autonomy, confidentiality, and privacy in protecting individual and familial group rights in genetic information. J Leg Med. 2001;22:1-54. Medline:11330121 doi:10.1080/019476401750171115
11. Taylor M. Genetic data and the law: a critical perspective on privacy protection. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
12. Prainsack B. Personhood and solidarity: what kind of personalized medicine do we want? Personalized Medicine. 2014;11:651-7. doi:10.2217/pme.14.49
13. Dove ES, Laurie GT. Consent and anonymisation: beware binary constructions. BMJ. 2015;350:h1139. Medline:25794882
14. Ram N. Tiered consent and the tyranny of choice. Jurimetrics. 2008;•••:253-84.
15. Prainsack B. Personalization from Below: Personalized Medicine in the 21st Century. New York City: New York University Press (under contract).
16. Rose N, Aicardi C, Reinsborough M. Foresight Report on Future Medicine. Deliverable of the Human Brain Project to the European Commission. 2015 Jun 26. Available from: https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/documents/10180/1055011/SP12_D12.1.1_FINAL.pdf/38d69e13-e410-4ffa-8371-88eb447b9082. Accessed: March 29, 2016.
17. Taylor M. Genetic data and the law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
18. Steinsbekk KS, Myskja BK, Solberg B. Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: Is passive participation an ethical problem? Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21:897-902. Medline:23299918 doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.282
19. Stein DT, Terry SF. Reforming biobank consent policy: a necessary move away from broad consent toward dynamic consent. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2013;17:855-6. Medline:24283583 doi:10.1089/gtmb.2013.1550
20. Ploug T, Holm S. Meta consent: a flexible and autonomous way of obtaining informed consent for secondary research. BMJ. 2015;350:h2146. Medline:25952952 doi:10.1136/bmj.h2146
21. Kaye J, Whitley EA, Kanellopoulou N, Creese S, Lund D, Hughes K. Broad consent is informed consent. BMJ. 2011;343:d6900. doi:10.1136/bmj.d6900
22. Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB, Church GM. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9:406-11. Medline:18379574 doi:10.1038/nrg2360
23. Leonelli S. Researching Life in the Digital Age: a philosophical study of data-centric biology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2016.
24. Farr C, Craft D. 23andMe lands $1.4 million grant from NIH to detect genetic roots for disease. Reuters Technology. Jul 29, 2014 EDT. Available from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/29/us-healthcare-23andme-idUSKBN0FY2IM20140729#O3I1uRbrlDP2LMh3.99. Accessed: March 21, 2016.
25. Aicardi A, Damjanovicova M, Del Savio L, Lucivero F, Mormina M, Niezen M, et al. Could DTC genome testing exacerbate research inequities? Bioethics Forum of The Hastings Center. 2016 Jan 20. Available from: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=7711&blogid=140. Accessed: March 29, 2016.
26. Harvard Business School. Robert and Myra Kraft Family Foundation establish $20 million endowment at Harvard Business School. Available from: http://www.hbs.edu/news/releases/Pages/kraftfamily-foundation-establishes-endowment.aspx. Accessed: March 21, 2016.