Online research in philosophy

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 because—it (...) is claimed—it 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. (shrink)

In the practice of medicine there has long been a conflict between patient management and respect for patient autonomy. In recent years this conflict has taken on a new form as patient management has increasingly been shifted from physicians to insurers, employers, and health care bureaucracies. The consequence has been a diminshment of both physician and patient autonomy and a parallel diminishment of medical record confidentiality. Although the new managers pay lip service to the rights of patients to confidentiality of (...) their records, in fact they advocate very liberal medical records access policies. They argue that a wide range of parties has a need to know the contents of individually identifiable medical records in order to control costs, promote quality of care, and undertake research in the public interest. Broad interpretations of the need to know, however, are at odds with strict interpretations of the right to confidentiality. Strict confidentiality policies require that, with few exceptions, patient consent be obtained whenever a patient's record is used outside the treatment context. The traditional criterion for overriding the consent requirement has been that without the override some harm would directly result. This rule is now challenged by the claim that patients have a duty to make their records available for a wide range of research and public health purposes. The longstanding tension between physician responsibility for patient welfare and respect for patient autonomy is being replaced by a debatable requirement that both physician and patient autonomy be subordinated to the goals of data collection and analysis. (shrink)