Requiring Consent vs. Waiving Consent for Medical Records Research: A Minnesota Law vs. the U.S. (HIPAA) Privacy Rule
Health Care Analysis 11 (3):207-218 (2003)
|Abstract||The use of medical records in research can yield information that is difficult to obtain by other means. When such records are released to investigators in identifiable form, however, substantial privacy and confidentiality risks may be created. These risks become more common and more serious as medical records move to an electronic format. In 1996, the state of Minnesota enacted legislation with respect to consent requirements for the use of medical records in research. This legislation has been widely criticized becauseâit is claimedâit creates an unnecessary impediment to research. In this article, we show that these arguments rest upon misinterpretation and/or misrepresentation of the 1996 legislation. A consent requirement had actually been present in Minnesota since 1976 (though codified in a patient rights statute rather than a privacy statute). The 1996 law does not require specific consent, as often claimed, but rather only a general authorization. The campaign against the Minnesota legislation appears to have been motivated by concern with respect to the then impending federal privacy rule. The HIPAA rule, as enacted, is in fact less stringent with respect to consent than the Minnesota consent law. On the other hand, the Minnesota consent law has not been effectively applied or enforced. As we change the way we manage sensitive medical information, new efforts are needed to provide protection against the confidentiality risks in research. Patient consent is an important tool in this regard. New instrumentalities are needed to solicit and document consent|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Beverly Woodward (2001). Confidentiality, Consent and Autonomy in the Physician-Patient Relationship. Health Care Analysis 9 (3):337-351.
Sheila McLean (2010). Autonomy, Consent and the Law. Routledge-Cavendish.
Deborah Bowman (2011). Informed Consent: A Primer for Clinical Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Richard Sobel (2007). The HIPAA Paradox: The Privacy Rule That's Not. Hastings Center Report 37 (4):40-50.
Oonagh Corrigan (ed.) (2009). The Limits of Consent: A Socio-Ethical Approach to Human Subject Research in Medicine. Oxford University Press.
M. Sheehan (2011). Can Broad Consent Be Informed Consent? Public Health Ethics 4 (3):226-235.
Franklin G. Miller (2008). Research on Medical Records Without Informed Consent. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (3):560-566.
Atsushi Asai, Motoki Ohnishi, Etsuyo Nishigaki, Miho Sekimoto, Shunichi Fukuhara & Tsuguya Fukui (2002). Attitudes of the Japanese Public and Doctors Towards Use of Archived Information and Samples Without Informed Consent: Preliminary Findings Based on Focus Group Interviews. BMC Medical Ethics 3 (1):1-10.
Loretta M. Kopelman (1994). Informed Consent and Anonymous Tissue Samples: The Case of Hiv Seroprevalence Studies. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (6):525-552.
Dennis John Mazur (1998). Medical Risk and the Right to an Informed Consent in Clinical Care and Clinical Research. American College of Physician Executives.
Neil C. Manson (2007). Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge University Press.
Garrath Williams (2012). Children as Means and Ends in Large-Scale Medical Research. Bioethics 26 (8):422-430.
Franklin G. Miller & Alan Wertheimer (2011). The Fair Transaction Model of Informed Consent: An Alternative to Autonomous Authorization. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 21 (3):201-218.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-08-24
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?