Skip header and navigation

Refine By

3 records – page 1 of 1.

Genomic Databases and Biobanks in Denmark.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature280292
Source
J Law Med Ethics. 2015;43(4):743-53
Publication Type
Article
Date
2015
Author
Mette Hartlev
Source
J Law Med Ethics. 2015;43(4):743-53
Date
2015
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence
Biological Specimen Banks - legislation & jurisprudence
Confidentiality - legislation & jurisprudence
Databases, Genetic - legislation & jurisprudence
Denmark
Genetic Research - legislation & jurisprudence
Humans
Abstract
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.
PubMed ID
26711414 View in PubMed
Less detail

The confidentiality of patient and physician information in pharmacy prescription records.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature181323
Source
CMAJ. 2004 Mar 2;170(5):815-6
Publication Type
Article
Date
Mar-2-2004
Author
Dick E Zoutman
B Douglas Ford
Assil R Bassili
Author Affiliation
Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Queen's University, 76 Stuart Street, Kingston, Ontario K7L 2V7, Canada. zoutman@cliff.path.queensu.ca
Source
CMAJ. 2004 Mar 2;170(5):815-6
Date
Mar-2-2004
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence
Canada
Confidentiality - legislation & jurisprudence
Disclosure - legislation & jurisprudence
Drug Prescriptions
Humans
Informed Consent - legislation & jurisprudence
Medical Records Systems, Computerized - legislation & jurisprudence
Pharmacy
Physician-Patient Relations
Notes
Cites: JAMA. 2000 Jan 19;283(3):373-8010647801
Cites: J Law Med Ethics. 1997 Summer-Fall;25(2-3):98-110, 8211066504
Cites: CMAJ. 2000 Oct 31;163(9):1146-811079059
Cites: CMAJ. 2002 Aug 20;167(4):393-612197705
Cites: BMJ. 2003 Feb 15;326(7385):37312586673
Cites: CMAJ. 2003 Jul 8;169(1):5, 712847016
Cites: CMAJ. 1998 Oct 20;159(8):997-10169834730
Comment In: CMAJ. 2004 Sep 28;171(7):711-2; author reply 71215451823
PubMed ID
14993178 View in PubMed
Less detail

Attitudes about donor information differ greatly between IVF couples using their own gametes and those receiving or donating oocytes or sperm.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature280849
Source
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Jun;33(6):703-10
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jun-2016
Author
Agneta Skoog Svanberg
G. Sydsjö
M. Bladh
C. Lampic
Source
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Jun;33(6):703-10
Date
Jun-2016
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Adolescent
Adult
Attitude
Family Characteristics
Female
Fertilization in Vitro - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Humans
Longitudinal Studies
Male
Oocyte Donation - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Spermatozoa
Sweden
Tissue Donors - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Abstract
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.
Notes
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
Cites: J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009 May;26(5):231-819472047
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2008 Apr;23(4):904-1118258766
Cites: Psychol Health. 2011 Sep;26(9):1113-2721929476
PubMed ID
27059774 View in PubMed
Less detail