Careful here please re C67; there are a number of "variables"
In summary, the position w.r.t. research is this.
The Government is seeking powers which would legimise disclosure of patient
information for research purpose by law
Assume the Bll becomes an Act
If NO regulations (e.g. powers not exercised) then still need the consent of
the patient for the research purpose
If there are regulations then the disclosure is required by law, and Consent
is not needed
The point I am making that if the disclosure is required by law, then you
also don't have to inform the Data Subject because of the non-disclosure
provisions. A Data Controller could choose to inform patients - there is NO
OBLIGATION to do so.
This latter point is why I have difficulty with the clause 67 because I think
that in the case of medical information patients (a) should be informed of
the research purposes and (b) be able to object. Because of the sensitivity
of the information, I think this should be the minimum standard.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 26 February 2001 21:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fw: clause 67 of the Health and Social Care Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Welton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: clause 67 of the Health and Social Care Bill
>
> In message timed Monday, February 26, 2001 8:39 AM
> [log in to unmask] commented:-
>
> > I believe no such statement of confidentiality exists, I think the
> clinical
> > information is automatically assumed to be held under a duty of
> > confidentiality unless a public interest overrides it.
>
> That is an assumption made by myself as well.
>
> However, if research normally requires explicit consent, but medical
> research, to use Chris Pounders phrase "is required by law and becomes
> subject to the non-disclosure provisions, and this means that there is no
> obligation to contact the patient and tell him of the purpose", does not
> that assumption become invalid.
>
> Hence the enquiry about potentially needing explicit consent, and having
any
> expressed confidentiality statement disclosed along with any other
material
> for any research purpose undertaken. The implications of Section 67(4c)
are
> extremely worrying in that context.
>
> I am alittle blind on this one, not having done any real DP worked in the
> medical field. The aspect which particularly caught my attention was that
> the police will no doubt be most interested in gaining access to any 'new
> crime information', from crime and disorder type researchers, who could
> potentially be using medical research data to support crime trend
arguments,
> and any expressed confidentiality requirement could then easily become
lost
> by default. Section 67(3b) seems particularly interesting in on that
point.
>
> Section 67 itself seems designed to prohibit and restrict processing for
> commercial purposes, the doors seem to be opened to all sorts of
> 'non-commercial purposes'.
>
> Section 67(8) would seem to make data processor agreements, and the
policing
> of them, extremely important to Caldicott Guardians/Health Service Data
> Protection Officers.
>
> Clearly, as you state, a change which has a consequence of opening up
access
> to health records without the patients explicit consent would raise very
> significant civil rights and human rights issues. Does Section 67 do that
> by being set up to restrict commercial but not other purposes?
>
> Ian W
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 8:39 AM
> Subject: Re: clause 67 of the Health and Social Care Bill
>
>
> > In a message dated 25/02/2001 16:02:33 GMT Standard Time,
> > [log in to unmask] writes:
> >
> > > <originally [log in to unmask]> wrote:The information in this
particular
> > scenario would not be released by the hospital, even under a s29(3)
> notice.<
> >
> > <<IW: This relies upon an assumption that the health service do record
> > explicit
> > requests for confidentiality in accident and emergency departments, and
> that
> > where any data transfer for medical research purposes or similar
purpose
> > occurs, the confidentiality statement goes with it. >>
> > ------------------------
> > I believe no such statement of confidentiality exists, I think the
> clinical
> > information is automatically assumed to be held under a duty of
> > confidentiality unless a public interest overrides it.
> >
> > I believe also that the new regulations are not intended to change that
> > situation. If they do, it is likely to cause problems with civil rights
> > groups and human rights law.
> >
> > Ian B
> > MD
> > Keep IT Legal Ltd
> > Please Note: The information contained in this document does not replace
> or
> > negate the need for proper legal advice and/or representation. It is
> > essential that you do not rely upon any advice given without contacting
> your
> > solicitor. If you need further explanation of any points raised please
> > contact Keep I.T. Legal Ltd at the address below:
> >
> > 55 Curbar Curve
> > Inkersall, Chesterfield
> > Derbyshire S43 3HP
> > (Reg 3822335)
> > Tel: 01246 473999
> > Fax: 01246 470742
> > E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> > Website: www.keepitlegal.co.uk
>
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
******************** E-mail confidentiality notice ********************
This message is intended for the addressee only. It is private,
confidential and may be covered by legal professional privilege or
other legal or attorney/client privilege. If you have received this
message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.
If you require assistance, please contact our London office
(telephone +44 (0) 20 7490 4000).
Masons is an international law firm with offices in London, Bristol,
Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, Brussels, Dublin, Hong Kong,
Guangzhou and Singapore.
Further information about the firm and a list of partners is
available for inspection at 30 Aylesbury Street, London EC1R OER
or from our Web site at www.masons.com
***********************************************************************
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
