Search

Data sharing is increasingly becoming an essential component of clinical practice and biomedical research. The debate has shifted from whether or not to exchange data to how best to achieve optimal sharing. This raises new ethical and legal challenges, particularly with regard to consent and privacy. This article discusses recent developments in the formulation of best practice guidelines for data sharing. Particular attention is focused on the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) draft Framework of Conduct for Data Sharing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study regarding life insurance and genetics-related information in Australia. It cites James who life insurance applications was changed as he had undergone a genetic test and was found to carry a mutation in the MSH6 gene. It adds that the case study adds to the evidence that incorrect risk estimates are used by by the insurance industry and life insurance concerns can act as hindrance to genetic testing.

Genetic discrimination, defined as the differential treatment of individuals or their relatives on the basis of actual or presumed genetic differences, is an emerging issue of interest in academic, clinical, social and legal contexts. While its potential significance has been discussed widely, verified empirical data are scarce. Genetic discrimination is a complex phenomenon to describe and investigate, as evidenced by the recent Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry in Australia. The authors research project, which commenced in 2002, aims to document the multiple perspectives and experiences regarding genetic discrimination in Australia and inform future policy development and law reform. Data are being collected from consumers, employers, insurers and the legal system. Attempted verification of alleged accounts of genetic discrimination will be a novel feature of the research. This paper overviews the early stages of the research, including conceptual challenges and their methodological implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the legislative developments on Privacy Act 1988 that lead to the creation of Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) which replaced the Information Privacy Principles (IPPs) and National Privacy Principles (NPPs). Topics mentioned include the aim on privacy regulation consistency, the varied at-risk genetic relatives of disclosing genetic information, and the highlight on the lack of uniformity which needs the requirement on proactivity from territories and states.

Focuses on the consequences of genetic discrimination for the individual concerned and society as a whole. Human rights issue that carries significant social, legal and policy implications; Nature and extent of genetic discrimination across countries where genetic services are highly developed.

This paper examines, from an Australian and international perspective, the phenomenon of population 'biobanks' (research platforms comprising collections of human genetic samples or 'biospecimens' and relevant personal information) and the legal challenges that this development presents. In particular, the paper focuses on the legal concept of consent and the tensions on the traditional understanding of consent that large-scale, long-term population biobanks exert. The aim of the paper is to review the operation of consent principles as they apply to population biobanks and to propose a way forward for how the consent concept can be reconceptualised to meet their demands. In particular, the paper argues for a more liberal approach which allows for 'broad' (or 'enlarged' or 'open') consent in circumstances where permission is sought for future use of samples in, as yet unspecified, genetic research. In pursuing this aim, the objectives underlying this paper are to ensure that unnecessary impediments to research are removed and, at the same time, to facilitate research participation and respect for autonomous choices by research subjects.

Background: The success of human population biobanks are dependent on the publics' willingness to participate. This research aimed to determine those factors important in determining the public's intention to donate a biological sample to a publicly funded biobank, and allow that sample to be linked with medical records., Methods: A national sample of 1000 Australians was surveyed via telephonic interviews. Questions included the reported likelihood that respondents would participate in biobank research, ratings of trust in biobanks, beliefs that biobank research will lead to improved health care and general ratings of comfort with blood taking and DNA analysis., Results: The sample reported a high level of trust in university biobanks, a strong belief that biobank research will lead to improved health care and a strong willingness to participate in biobank research. Using structural equation modelling, trust in the biobank was found to be the most important determinant of intention to participate in biobank research, followed by general comfort with blood taking and DNA analysis, belief in health-care benefits and higher education. Gender, age, parental status and experience of genetic conditions were not significantly associated with intention to participate., Conclusions: Australians are generally willing to participate in biobank research, and this is strongly determined by trust. While benefit beliefs and comfort with research are also relevant, higher trust was associated with intention regardless of these factors, suggesting reasons other than concern for improved health care are important in determining the publics' willingness to participate in biobank research.

The federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cwlth) has recently been amended to permit the disclosure of genetic information to an at-risk relative when there is a serious (although not necessarily imminent) threat to that person's life, health, or safety. This represents a significant exception to the statutory obligations to maintain the privacy of a patient's health information. However, its scope of operation is limited in that it applies only to doctors and other health professionals working in the private sector, and does not cover those working in State public hospitals or for Commonwealth Government agencies.

Although uniquely personal, the information from gene analyses impacts on parents, siblings, children and even entire ethnic groups. Doctors need to carefully balance the right of a patient to privacy against the wider family and society interests, consistent with ethical standards and their legal obligations. Doctors also need to be in a position to advise their patients of potential risks that may result from obtaining predictive genetic information, such as discrimination by third parties. While these issues are not new, they occur with new sharpness in the "new genetics", where clinicians have to be familiar not only with clinical significance, but also the ethical and legal implications of genetic analyses and information.

This paper outlines a major empirical study that is being undertaken by an interdisciplinary team into genetic discrimination in Australia. The 3-year study will examine the nature and extent of this newly emerging phenomenon across the perspectives of consumers, third parties, and the legal system and will analyze its social and legal dimensions. Although the project is confined to Australia, it is expected that the outcomes will have significance for the wider research community as this is the most substantial study of its kind to be undertaken to date into genetic discrimination.

This article describes a nationwide empirical study that will be undertaken during the next three years into the newly emerging phenomenon of genetic discrimination. In particular, the study aims to investigate the nature and extent of genetic discrimination in Australia across three key perspectives: consumers, third parties and the legal system. Further, the study aims to examine the social and legal implications of genetic discrimination, with a view to making recommendations for use in the Australian legal and policy context. It is anticipated that the data produced from this multifaceted investigation will assist in identifying areas where legal or other reforms are required. It will contribute significant baseline data for facilitating ongoing assessment of the nature and extent of the problem, as well as for longitudinal evaluation of the impact and effectiveness of any reforms which may be introduced in the future to address the issue.