Biobanking in Denmark is regulated via patients' rights laws, data protection laws, and research ethics reviews. Danish law recognizes tissue samples as personal data for purposes of the data protection laws, meaning research with tissue samples may be subject to research ethics review, data protection laws, and patients' rights requirements depending on the circumstances of collection. However, research on information gained through whole genome sequencing is subject only to data protection laws, despite the similarity in the nature of the information. The regulatory framework treats biobank samples collected from patients differently than samples collected from research participants, particularly with respect to autonomy. Importantly, biobanks established for future unspecified research are not subject to research ethics review. Biobank-based research has gained more prominence on the national level recently, and the potential for a less fragmented and more consistent regulatory approach may emerge from this attention.
The objective of the study is to examine attitudes towards aspects of donation treatment based on a national Swedish sample of gamete donors and couples undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART).
The present study was part of the Swedish study on gamete donation, a prospective longitudinal cohort study including all fertility clinics performing gamete donation in Sweden. The sample comprised 164 oocyte donors, 89 sperm donors, 251 people treated with their own gametes (in vitro fertilisation (IVF)), 213 oocyte recipients and 487 sperm recipients. A study-specific questionnaire was used.
Attitudes vary widely between couples using their own gametes for IVF and those receiving or donating oocyte or sperm. The groups differed in their responses to most questions. Oocyte and sperm donors were more likely to agree with the statements "The donor should be informed if the donation results in a child" and "Offspring should receive some information about the donor during mature adolescence" than recipients of donated gametes and couples treated with their own gametes.
Donor recipients, IVF couples and donors expressed different attitudes towards openness and information when it came to gamete donation, and those differences seemed to depend on their current reproductive situation.
Cites: Med J Aust. 2003 Feb 3;178(3):127-912558484
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2013 Sep;28(9):2432-923756704
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2004 Oct;19(10):2415-915310730
Cites: Public Underst Sci. 2009 Jan;18(1):61-7719579535
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2009 Aug;24(8):1930-819414865
Cites: Ups J Med Sci. 2013 Aug;118(3):187-9523786323
The advent of the human genome sequence has focused research on understanding underlying genetic links to complex diseases such as cancer, asthma and heart disease. In the past few years, individual countries, such as Iceland, Estonia, Singapore and the United Kingdom, have created national databases of their citizens' DNA for comparative research. Most recently, an international consortium including Nigeria, Japan, China and the United States launched a $100 million project called the International HapMap to map the human genome according to haplotypes, blocks of DNA that contain genetic variation. Such population genetic databases present challenging ethical, social and legal issues, yet regulation of genetic information has developed sporadically, from region to region, without a consistent international standard. Without a clear understanding of the consequences of genetic research in terms of individual and community-wide discrimination and stigmatization, genetic databases raise concerns about the protection of genetic information. This Note provides a survey of the evolving landscape of population genetic databases as a legislative and public policy tool for national and international regulators. It compares different approaches to regulating the collection and use of population genetic databases in order to understand what areas of consensus are formulating a foundation for an international standard. As the first population genetics project that will span multiple countries for the collection of DNA, the International HapMap has the potential to become an influential standard for the protection of population genetic information. This Note highlights issues among the national databases and the HapMap project that raise ethical, social and legal concerns for the future and recommends further protections for both individual donors and community interests.
In living kidney donation, transplant professionals consider the rights of a living kidney donor and recipient to keep their personal health information confidential and the need to disclose this information to the other for informed consent. In incompatible kidney exchange, personal health information from multiple living donors and recipients may affect decision making and outcomes.
We conducted a survey to understand and compare the preferences of potential donors (n = 43), potential recipients (n = 73), and health professionals (n = 41) toward sharing personal health information (in total 157 individuals).
When considering traditional live-donor transplantation, donors and recipients generally agreed that a recipient's health information should be shared with the donor (86 and 80%, respectively) and that a donor's information should be shared with the recipient (97 and 89%, respectively). When considering incompatible kidney exchange, donors and recipients generally agreed that a recipient's information should be shared with all donors and recipients involved in the transplant (85 and 85%, respectively) and that a donor's information should also be shared with all involved (95 and 90%, respectively). These results were contrary to attitudes expressed by transplant professionals, who frequently disagreed about whether such information should be shared.
Future policies and practice could facilitate greater sharing of personal health information in living kidney donation. This requires a consideration of which information is relevant, how to put it in context, and a plan to obtain consent from all concerned.
Cites: Am J Transplant. 2003 Jul;3(7):830-412814474
Cites: Am J Transplant. 2009 Jul;9(7):1558-7319459792
Cites: Transplantation. 2004 Aug 27;78(4):491-215446304
Cites: Lancet. 1992 Oct 3;340(8823):807-101357243
Cites: Can J Surg. 2004 Dec;47(6):408-1315646438
Cites: Transplantation. 2005 Mar 27;79(6 Suppl):S53-6615785361
Cites: HIV Med. 2006 Apr;7(3):133-916494626
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2006 Aug 1;145(3):185-9616880460