...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Ethics >In Defence of informed consent for health record research?- why arguments from ‘easy rescue’, ‘no harm’ and ‘consent bias’ fail
【24h】

In Defence of informed consent for health record research?- why arguments from ‘easy rescue’, ‘no harm’ and ‘consent bias’ fail

机译:捍卫经济记录研究的知情同意? - 为什么“轻松救援”的论据,“无危害”和“同意偏见”失败

获取原文
           

摘要

Health data holds great potential for improved treatments. Big data research and machine learning models have been shown to hold great promise for improved diagnostics and treatment planning. The potential is tied, however, to the availability of personal health data. In recent years, it has been argued that data from health records should be available for health research, and that individuals have a duty to make the data available for such research. A central point of debate is whether such secondary use of health data requires informed consent. In response to recent writings this paper argues that a requirement of informed consent for health record research must be upheld. It does so by exploring different contrasting notions of the duty of easy rescue and arguing that none of them entail a perfect duty to participate in health record research. In part because the costs of participation cannot be limited to 1) the threat of privacy breaches, but includes 2) the risk of reduced trust and 3) suboptimal treatment, 4) stigmatization and 5) medicalisation, 6) further stratification of solidarity and 7) increased inequality in access to treatment and medicine. And finally, it defends the requirement of informed consent by arguing that the mere possibility of consent bias provides a rather weak reason for making research participation mandatory, and that there are strong, independent reasons for making. Arguments from the duty of easy rescue in combination with claims about little risk of harm and potential consent bias fail to establish not only a perfect duty to participate in health record research, but also that participation in such research should be mandatory. On the contrary, an analysis of these arguments indicates that the duty to participate in research is most adequately construed as an imperfect duty, and reveals a number of strong reasons for insisting that participation in health records research is based on informed consent.
机译:健康数据具有改进治疗的巨大潜力。已经显示大数据研究和机器学习模型对改进的诊断和治疗规划来说,这是一个很好的希望。然而,潜力是依赖于个人健康数据的可用性。近年来,有人认为,应提供健康记录的数据,用于卫生研究,并且个人有责任使这些研究提供数据。辩论的中心点是这种次要使用健康数据需要知情同意。为了回应最近的着作,本文认为必须维持对健康记录研究的知情同意的要求。它通过探索轻松救援的责任的不同染色概念来实现,并争论他们没有一个完全义务参与健康记录研究。部分原因是参与的成本不能限制为1)隐私违规的威胁,但包括2)减少信托和3)次优处的风险,4)耻辱和5)医学化,6)共同分层和7 )获得治疗和医学的不平等。最后,通过争辩说,仅仅同意偏见的可能性提供了一个相当薄弱的研究参与的可能性,它捍卫了知情同意的要求,并有强有力,独立的制作原因。与损害义务的争论与损害危险程度的责任和潜在同意偏见的义务相结合,不仅不仅要建立了参与健康记录研究的完美义务,而且应该是强制性的。相反,对这些论点的分析表明,参与研究的责任最被解释为不完美的责任,并揭示了坚持参与健康记录研究的强烈理由是基于知情同意。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号