BackgroundConsent for data research in acute and critical care is complex as patients become at least temporarily incapacitated or die. Existing guidelines and regulations in the European Union are of limited help and there is a lack of literature about the use of data from this vulnerable group. To aid the creation of a patient-centred framework for responsible data research in the acute setting, we explored views of patients and next-of-kin about the collection, storage, sharing and use of genetic and (...) health-related data for observational research.MethodsWe conducted qualitative interviews (n = 19) with Dutch sudden cardiac arrest survivors who donated clinical and socio-economic data and genetic samples to research. We also interviewed their next-of-kin. Topics were informed by ethics literature and we used scenario-sketches to aid discussion of complex issues.ResultsSudden cardiac arrest survivors displayed limited awareness of their involvement in health data research and of the content of their given consent. We found that preferences regarding disclosure of clinically actionable genetic findings could change over time. When data collection and use were limited to the medical realm, patients trusted researchers to handle data responsibly without concern for privacy or other risks. There was no consensus as to whether deferred consent should be explicitly asked from survivors. If consent is asked, this would ideally be done a few months after the event when cognitive capacities have been regained. Views were divided about the need to obtain proxy consent for research with deceased patients’ data. However, there was general support for the disclosure of potentially relevant post-mortem genetic findings to relatives.ConclusionsSudden cardiac arrest patients’ donation of data for research was grounded in trust in medicine overall, blurring the boundary between research and care. Our findings also highlight questions about the acceptability of a one-time consent and about responsibilities of patients, researchers and ethics committees. Finally, further normative investigation is needed regarding the (continued) use of participants’ data after death, which is of particular importance in this setting. Our findings are thought to be of relevance for other acute and life-threatening illnesses as well. (shrink)

While Specific Informed Consent has been the established standard for obtaining consent for medical research for many years, it does not appear suitable for large-scale biobank and health data research. Thus, alternative forms of consent have been suggested, based on a variety of ethical background assumptions. This article identifies five main ethical perspectives at stake. Even though Tiered Consent, Dynamic Consent and Meta Consent are designed to the demands of the self-determination perspective as well as the perspective of research as (...) a public good, they are still also criticized from both perspectives. In addition, criticisms based on concerns of justice, participation and democratic deliberation, and relational concerns have been levelled at each of the models. As all of these perspectives have valid points to make, the task at hand lies in balancing these ethical perspectives. What constitutes an adequate balancing depends on contextual factors. These factors include digital infrastructure and digital literacy, data safety regulation, good scientific and clinical practice, transparent debates on ethically relevant features of research, social inequalities, anti-discrimination laws and practices, trust in health care institutions and recognition of patient preferences, and consensus on unethical research. We argue that the role of context in determining acceptable models of consent puts the ethical importance of models of consent into perspective. Since altering contextual factors can help to live up to the ethical concerns at stake in debates about models of consent, opting for such a shift of focus comes without ethical loss. (shrink)

Informed consent bears significant relevance as a legal basis for the processing of personal data and health data in the current privacy, data protection and confidentiality legislations. The consent requirements find their basis in an ideal of personal autonomy. Yet, with the recent advent of the global pandemic and the increased use of eHealth applications in its wake, a more differentiated perspective with regards to this normative approach might soon gain momentum. This paper discusses the compatibility of a moral duty (...) to share data for the sake of the improvement of healthcare, research, and public health with autonomy in the field of data protection, privacy and medical confidentiality. It explores several ethical-theoretical justifications for a duty of data sharing, and then reflects on how existing privacy, data protection, and confidentiality legislations could obstruct such a duty. Consent, as currently defined in the General Data Protection Regulation – a key legislative framework providing rules on the processing of personal data and data concerning health – and in the recommendation of the Council of Europe on the protection of health-related data – explored here as soft-law – turns out not to be indispensable from various ethical perspectives, while the requirement of consent in the General Data Protection Regulation and the recommendation nonetheless curtails the full potential of a duty to share medical data. Also other legal grounds as possible alternatives for consent seem to constitute an impediment. (shrink)

The emergence of a global industry of digital health platforms operated by Big Tech corporations, and its growing entanglements with academic and pharmaceutical research networks, raise pressing questions on the capacity of current data governance models, regulatory and legal frameworks to safeguard the sustainability of the health research ecosystem. In this article, we direct our attention toward the challenges faced by the European General Data Protection Regulation in regulating the potentially disruptive engagement of Big Tech platforms in health research. The (...) General Data Protection Regulation upholds a rather flexible regime for scientific research through a number of derogations to otherwise stricter data protection requirements, while providing a very broad interpretation of the notion of “scientific research”. Precisely the breadth of these exemptions combined with the ample scope of this notion could provide unintended leeway to the health data processing activities of Big Tech platforms, which have not been immune from carrying out privacy-infringing and socially disruptive practices in the health domain. We thus discuss further finer-grained demarcations to be traced within the broadly construed notion of scientific research, geared to implementing use-based data governance frameworks that distinguish health research activities that should benefit from a facilitated data protection regime from those that should not. We conclude that a “re-purposing” of big data governance approaches in health research is needed if European nations are to promote research activities within a framework of high safeguards for both individual citizens and society. (shrink)

In discussions on the ethics of genome collections and biobanks, the main worry about whether we are permitted to collect and use individuals’ genomic and genetic data is the potential for the violation of individuals’ right to informational privacy. Yet, if we do not permit these endeavors, we risk giving up on the future benefits of biomedical research. In this paper, I describe a private venture in blockchain genomics that seeks to provide an apt solution to concerns about potential privacy (...) violations in genome collections and biobanks. I then provide some reasons to doubt the kind of solution to the dilemma that such start-ups propose. I argue that the sort of autonomy that grounds the value of the right to informational privacy cannot be secured with blockchain technology alone. So, blockchain genomics ventures are insufficient to establish the permissibility of genome collections and biobanks. I then discuss an additional ethical challenge to genomic biobanks. This challenge takes the form of doubting that future benefits that result from biomedical research dependent on genomic databases will outweigh the costs. Despite criticisms of genomic research, I claim that it is reasonable to think that future net benefits will be gained from research on such databases. Therefore, I conclude that there remains a dilemma in the ethics of genomic biobanks. (shrink)

Scientific research is indispensable inter alia in order to treat harmful diseases, address societal challenges and foster economic innovation. Such research is not the domain of a single type of organization but can be conducted by a range of different entities in both the public and private sectors. Given that the use of personal data may be indispensable for many forms of research, the data protection framework will play an important role in determining not only what types of research may (...) occur but also which types of actors may carry it out. This article looks at the role the EU’s General Data Regulation plays in determining which types of actors can conduct research with personal data. In doing so it focuses on the various legal bases that are available and attempts to discern whether the GDPR can be said to favour research in either the public or private domains. As this article explains, the picture is nuanced, with either type of research actor enjoying advantages and disadvantages in specific contexts. (shrink)

Broad consent is permitted by the South African National Department of Health Ethics Guidelines but appears to be prohibited by section 13(1) of the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013. Additionally, the Act mandates that all personal data (including biobank sample data) be collected for lawful, explicit, and clearly defined purposes. There is possibility for ambiguity in interpretation because of this discrepancy between the two instruments. Given the association between the transfer of samples and data, the long-term nature (...) of biobanking, which makes it impractical to provide too much or enough information because it is simply not available at the time of sample collection, and the various ways that the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 have been interpreted, we aim to demonstrate that South Africa’s current regulatory framework should appropriately permit broad consent use for biobank research where the transfer of samples and their associated data are contemplated. In summary, the proposed amendments include removing regulatory ambiguity regarding broad consent use, ensuring adequate safeguards for research participants by specifying rules for data access and personal information processing, and incorporating consent form information requirements into the national Consent Template. (shrink)

This paper explores some key discrepancies between two sets of normative requirements applicable to the research use of personal data and human biological materials: the data protection regime which follows the application of the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, and the Declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS guidelines and other research ethics regulations. One source of this controversy is that the GDPR requires consent to process personal data to be clear, concise, specific and granular, freely given and revocable and therefore has (...) challenged the concept of ‘broad consent’, which has been widely applied in the context of biobanking. Another source of controversy is the interplay between regulations of research ethics and protection of personal data related to the secondary use of personal data and biological materials. In this case, the GDPR ‘research condition’ provides an alternative to re-consent for the use of previously collected personal data and biological materials. Although the mentioned controversies have been raised in the legal literature, they have not been explicitly addressed from the research ethics perspective. Should consent be regarded as a priority legal basis for personal data processing in health data research? Can broad consent still be a suitable legal ground for biobanking? What should be the role of research ethics provisions that differ from the GDPR standards, and what should be the role and function of research ethics committees in the changing environment of health data research? These are the ongoing controversies to be explored in the paper. (shrink)