Literature DB >> 34263353

From 'Consent or Anonymise' to 'Share and Protect': Facilitating Access to Surplus Tissue for Research Whilst Safeguarding Donor Interests.

Catherine Blewett1.   

Abstract

There is significant research value in the secondary use of surplus human tissue which has been removed during clinical care and is stored in diagnostic archives. However, this value is limited without access to information about the person from whom the tissue was removed. As the research value of surplus tissue is often not realised until after the patient's episode of care, it is often the case that no consent has been given for any surplus tissue to be used for research purposes. The Human Tissue Act 2004 does permit research use of surplus tissue without consent, but the researcher must not be in possession of information which could identify the person from whom the tissue was removed. Due to the commonly applied 'consent or anonymise' approach, linking tissue and data is challenging and full anonymisation would likely render much research on surplus tissue ineffectual. This article suggests that in recognising the value in surplus tissue linked with information about the person, a 'share and protect' approach which considers safeguards other than anonymisation, where obtaining consent for research use would not be feasible, would better balance the public benefit of health research with the protection of individual rights and interests than a requirement for either consent or anonymisation.
© 2021. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anonymisation; Consent; Identifiability; Research; Tissue

Year:  2021        PMID: 34263353     DOI: 10.1007/s10728-021-00435-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Care Anal        ISSN: 1065-3058


  18 in total

Review 1.  The tension between data sharing and the protection of privacy in genomics research.

Authors:  Jane Kaye
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2012-03-09       Impact factor: 8.929

Review 2.  No consent should be needed for using leftover body material for scientific purposes. For.

Authors:  Paul J van Diest
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-09-21

3.  The obligation to participate in biomedical research.

Authors:  G Owen Schaefer; Ezekiel J Emanuel; Alan Wertheimer
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-07-01       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 4.  Biobanking residual tissues.

Authors:  Peter H J Riegman; Evert-Ben van Veen
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2011-08-04       Impact factor: 4.132

5.  Consent gained from patients after breast surgery for the use of surplus tissue in research: an exploration.

Authors:  S Hamilton; J Hepper; A Hanby; J Hewison
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  Going Beyond the False Dichotomy of Broad or Specific Consent: A Meta-Perspective on Participant Choice in Research Using Human Tissue.

Authors:  Thomas Ploug; Søren Holm
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 11.229

7.  New hurdles for translational research.

Authors:  M Dowsett
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2000-05-24       Impact factor: 6.466

Review 8.  The ethical use of existing samples for genome research.

Authors:  Oliver F Bathe; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  The Informatics Challenges Facing Biobanks: A Perspective from a United Kingdom Biobanking Network.

Authors:  Philip R Quinlan; Martin Groves; Lee B Jordan; Hilary Stobart; Colin A Purdie; Alastair M Thompson
Journal:  Biopreserv Biobank       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 2.300

10.  Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks.

Authors:  Jane Kaye; Edgar A Whitley; David Lund; Michael Morrison; Harriet Teare; Karen Melham
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 4.246

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.