The simplest answer is that I am wrong and that I do not understand what GDPR means by detriment.
Some support for this appears in the Art 29 guidance http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=48849
There are two examples of "explicit consent" in a medical context at the top of page 20. I struggle to see how one can avoid detriment in both cases.
The first relates to a second opinion. If a clinician feels a second opinion is justified, surely there is detriment if "consent" is refused? One could perhaps contrive a scenario where there was not, but that would be a strange way to use an example.
The second example looks even stronger in terms of detriment - at least if the "specific purpose" relates to treatment. If so the purpose must be beneficial (or is could not ethically be proposed) in which case there must be a detriment. If the drafter did not intend to encompass treatment purposes, why did he use a medical example and risk confusing the issue.
If anyone can more easily reconcile these examples with recital 42, and the statements about detriment elsewhere in the guidance (pages 4 and 21) I (and perhaps the NHS?) would be very grateful.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
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 https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/subscribers/subscribercommands.html
Any queries about sending or receiving messages please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
Full help Desk - please email [log in to unmask] describing your needs
To receive these emails in HTML format send the command:
SET data-protection HTML to [log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|