Skip header and navigation

Refine By

18 records – page 1 of 2.

Federal government unveils modest transparency initiative.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature136007
Source
CMAJ. 2011 Apr 19;183(7):E383-4
Publication Type
Article
Date
Apr-19-2011
Source
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013 Apr;35(4):299-302
Publication Type
Article
Date
Apr-2013

CMAJ 2011 election survey: transparency.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature134779
Source
CMAJ. 2011 Jun 14;183(9):E513-4
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jun-14-2011

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 right to know about chemical hazards in Canada, 1982-2006.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature156967
Source
New Solut. 2008;18(2):233-43
Publication Type
Article
Date
2008
Author
Dave Bennett
Author Affiliation
daveandjoanne@mts.net
Source
New Solut. 2008;18(2):233-43
Date
2008
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence
Canada
Disclosure - legislation & jurisprudence
Hazardous Substances
Humans
Information Services - legislation & jurisprudence
Occupational Exposure - legislation & jurisprudence
Occupational health - legislation & jurisprudence
Abstract
Traditionally in Canada, there are three health and safety rights: the right to participate (joint workplace health and safety committees); the right to refuse unsafe and unhealthy work; and the right to know about workplace hazards. By the end of the 1970s, the right to know had been established in law across Canada, but it was not enough to cover workplace chemical hazards in particular. The Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) was a project set up by the Canadian federal government in 1982 to address the issue. This article tells the story of how labor got the progressive WHMIS agreement(1985) and how the agreement has been implemented in the following years.
PubMed ID
18511399 View in PubMed
Less detail

Attitudes to privacy, health records and interconnection: implications for healthcare organizations.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature188344
Source
Hosp Q. 2002;5(4):40-5, 2
Publication Type
Article
Date
2002
Author
Earl Berger
Author Affiliation
Hay Healthcare Consulting Group, Canada. Earl_Berger@haygroup.com
Source
Hosp Q. 2002;5(4):40-5, 2
Date
2002
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence
Attitude to Health
Canada
Confidentiality - legislation & jurisprudence
Data Collection
Ethics
Humans
Medical Records Systems, Computerized
National Health Programs
Organizational Policy
Abstract
About nine in 10 Canadians support legislation that would protect patient confidentiality. However, the Canadian public is not consistent in its views regarding privacy. Data suggest that the public's attitudes to privacy, and particularly access to medical records, are heavily influenced by the context in which the situation is presented and potential benefits to the individual or to the public.
PubMed ID
12357571 View in PubMed
Less detail

The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act: physician prescription data and Canadian health system reviews.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature188521
Source
Health Law Can. 2002 Aug;23(1):1-10
Publication Type
Article
Date
Aug-2002

Privacy of pharmacy prescription records.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature178197
Source
CMAJ. 2004 Sep 28;171(7):711-2; author reply 712
Publication Type
Article
Date
Sep-28-2004

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

18 records – page 1 of 2.