Abstract
AbstractThere 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.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Health(social science),Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Reference49 articles.
1. McHale, J. (2013). Reforming the regulation of health research in england and wales: New challenges: New pitfalls. Journal of Medical Law and Ethics, 1(1), 23–42.
2. Schaefer, O., Emanuel, E., & Wertheimer, A. (2009). The obligation to participate in biomedical research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 302(1), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.931
3. Academy of Medical Sciences_A New Pathway for the Regulation and Governance of Health Research. https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/35208-newpathw.pdf
4. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. https://www.wma.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/DoH-Oct2013-JAMA.pdfhttps://www.wma.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/DoH-Oct2013-JAMA.pdf.
5. Rid, A., & Schmidt, H. (2010). The 2008 declaration of Helsinki – first among equals in research ethics. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics., 38(1), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00474.x