Search

Background With advances in sequencing technologies, increasing numbers of people are being informed about a genetic disease identified in their family. In current practice, probands (the first person in a family in whom a genetic predisposition is identified) are asked to inform at-risk relatives about the diagnosis. However, previous research has shown that relatives are sometimes not informed due to barriers such as family conflicts. Research on family communication in genetic diseases aims to explore the difficulties encountered in informing relatives and to identify ways to support probands in this. Main body Research on family communication may also reveal that participants did not inform their relatives about the risk of a serious genetic condition, even when preventive and treatment options are available. Researchers may then face a dilemma: Do they need to warn at-risk relatives about the finding? Or do they keep silent due to prior confidentiality agreements with study participants? Conclusions We believe that the absolute confidence promised to research participants outweighs the interests of their relatives, even though it can be claimed that relatives at risk of a genetic disease do, in principle, have a right to know information collected about their health. Not respecting confidentiality agreements could cause distrust between researchers and research participants and possibly harm the relationship between probands and relatives. Relatives' health interests can still be taken into account without jeopardizing participant trust, by considering alternative scenarios, including sharing general study findings on the barriers participants experience with their healthcare professionals and by offering participants psychosocial support for family communication.

Learning healthcare systems have recently emerged as a strategy to continuously use experiences and outcomes of clinical care for research purposes in precision medicine. Although it is known that learning healthcare transitions in general raise important ethical challenges, the ethical ramifications of such transitions in the specific context of precision medicine have not extensively been discussed. Here, we describe three levers that institutions can pull to advance learning healthcare systems in precision medicine: (1) changing testing of individual variability (such as genes); (2) changing prescription of treatments on the basis of (genomic) test results; and/or (3) changing the handling of data that link variability and treatment to clinical outcomes. Subsequently, we evaluate how patients can be affected if one of these levers are pulled: (1) patients are tested for different or more factors than before the transformation, (2) patients receive different treatments than before the transformation and/or (3) patients’ data obtained through clinical care are used, or used more extensively, for research purposes. Based on an analysis of the aforementioned mechanisms and how these potentially affect patients, we analyze why learning healthcare systems in precision medicine need a different ethical approach and discuss crucial points to consider regarding this approach.

Innovative ways of healthcare delivery like m-Health, the practice of medicine by mobile devices and wearable devices are the promising new technique that may lead to improvement in quality of care at lower costs. While fully acknowledging the importance of m-Health development, there are challenges on privacy legislation. We address the legal framework, especially the General Data Protection Regulation, applied to m-Health and its implications for m-Health developments in Europe. We discuss how these rules are applied using a representative example of an m-Health programme with remote monitoring in the Netherlands. We consider informing patients about the data processing and obtaining their explicit consent as main responsibilities of healthcare providers introducing m-Health in their practice.

The majority of biobank policies and consent forms do not address post-mortem use of data for medical research, thus causing uncertainty after research participants’ death. This systematic review identifies studies examining stakeholders’ perspectives on this issue. We conducted a search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science. Findings were categorised in two themes: (1) views on the use of data for medical research after participants’ death, and (2) perspectives regarding the post-mortem return of individual genetic research results. An important subtheme was the appropriate authority and degree of control over posthumous use of data. The sixteen included studies all focused on genetic data and used quantitative and qualitative methods to survey perspectives of research participants, family members, researchers and Institutional Review Board members. Acceptability of post-mortem use of data for medical research was high among research participants and their relatives. Most stakeholders thought participants should be informed about post-mortem research uses during initial consent. Between lay persons and professionals, disagreement exists about whether relatives should receive actionable genetic findings, and whether the deceased’s previous preferences can be overridden. We conclude that regulations and ethical guidance should leave room for post-mortem use of personal data for research, provided that informed consent procedures are transparent on this issue, including the return of individual research findings to relatives. Future research is needed to explore underlying causes for differences in views, as well as ethical and legal issues on the appropriate level of control by deceased research participants (while alive) and their relatives.

Er zullen weinig onderzoekers zijn die niet op de een of andere manier betrokken zijn bij de oprichting van biobanken, of bij het gebruik van hierin gearchiveerde lichaamsmaterialen en gegevens voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Dit geldt zeker ook voor het terrein van de kindergeneeskunde en het ontstaan, voorkomen en behandelen van aangeboren of op jonge leeftijd verworven ziekten en aandoeningen. Zulk onderzoek leunt in belangrijke mate op omvangrijke en duurzame collecties van materialen en gegevens van kinderen (hierna ‘kinderbiobanken’). Bekende Nederlandse voorbeelden zijn de ‘Amsterdam Born Children and their Development-studie’ (ABCD-studie), 1 het KOALA-onderzoek 2 en het Nederlandse Tweelingen Register. 3 In ons land is bovendien sprake van een landelijke kinderbiobank: het ‘hielprik screeningsprogramma’ van het RIVM. 4 Dit artikel betreft de vraag hoe de zeggenschap en het recht op privacy van kinderen moeten worden vormgegeven, wanneer hun lichaamsmateriaal voor later wetenschappelijk gebruik in een biobank wordt opgenomen

Many current paediatric studies concern relationships between genes and environment and discuss aetiology, treatment and prevention of Mendelian and multifactorial diseases. Many of these studies depend on collection and long-term storage of data and biological material from affected children in biobanks. Stored material is a source of personal information of the donor and his family and could be used in an undesirable context, potentially leading to discrimination and interfering with a child's right to an open future. Here, we address the normative framework regarding biobanking with residual tissue of children, protecting the privacy interests of young biobank donors (0-12 years). We analyse relevant legal documents concerning storage and use of children's material for research purposes. We explore the views of 17 Dutch experts involved in paediatric biobank research and focus on informed consent for donation of leftover tissue as well as disclosure of individual research findings resulting from biobank research. The results of this analysis show that experts have no clear consensus about the appropriate rules for storage of and research with children's material in biobanks. Development of a framework that provides a fair balance between fundamental paediatric research and privacy protection is necessary.

If no therapy is available for a disease and a new therapy may have beneficial effects, a well-designed placebo-controlled randomized trial will not immediately raise ethical questions. Pre-2008 versions of the Helsinki Declaration reflect this. However, the Declaration of 2008 allows placebo-controlled randomized trials even where an established effective therapy is available, providing this is methodologically inevitable and safe for patients. Placebo-controlled trials have important advantages for sponsors: they are easier to perform because fewer patients are required and small improvements are sufficient to show the efficacy of a new therapy. The authors consider both arguments open for interpretation and argue that the current revision of the Declaration of Helsinki should return to its pre-2008 version. They also suggest that, independently of this, IRBs should resume the policy of rejecting protocols that use placebo while withholding an effective treatment.

Large sets of data and human specimens, such as blood, tumour tissue and DNA, are deposited in biobanks for research purposes, preferably for long periods of time and with broadly defined research aims. Our research focuses on the retention of data and biological materials obtained from children. However important such paediatric biobanks may be, the privacy interests of the children involved and the related risks may not be ignored. The privacy issues arising from paediatric biobanks are the central focus of this article. We first review the international regulations that apply to biobanks and then summarise viewpoints expressed by experts in a round-table discussion. We confine ourselves here to two normative questions: (1) How much control should children’s parents or legal representatives, and later the children themselves, have over the stored materials and data? (2) What should be done if research findings emerge that have serious implications for a child’s health? Conclusion: On the basis of international legal standards and the views of experts, involved in paediatric biobanking, we argue that biological material of children may only be stored in a biobank for scientific purposes if parents provide their explicit consent, the child is re-contacted at 16 or 18 years of age to reconsider storage and use of its material, and the biobank maintains a limited policy in disclosure of individual research findings to the child’s parents. What is Known: • Increasingly, biological material of children is stored in biobanks for research purposes. • Clear standards on the conditions under which children’s cells or tissues may be stored and used are lacking. What is New: • According to experts, storage and use of children’s materials should only be allowed if performed in accordance with appropriate consent procedures and feedback policies. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00431-016-2810-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

According to the Declaration of Helsinki, participation of human subjects in medical research is only acceptable if subjects have given their consent. But in child abuse and neglect, many studies use a design in which subjects do not actively participate. Data in these studies are gathered from sources such as medical records or Child Protective Services. As long as such data are used anonymously, this does not interfere with individual privacy rights. However, some research is only possible when carried out with personally identifiable data, which could potentially be misused. In this paper, we discuss in which situations and under which conditions personal data of children may be used for a study without obtaining consent. In doing so, we make use of two recent studies, performed in our hospital, in which we encountered this issue. Both studies involved collecting personal data. After careful consideration, we decided not to ask informed consent; instead, we arranged for specific safeguards to protect the subject’s and their parents’ privacy as well as possible. Conclusion: Altogether, we conclude that our approach fits within the Dutch legal framework and seems a reasonable solution in situations in which individual privacy rights are at odds with the public interest of child abuse and neglect research. We argue that, although, in principle, data research is only acceptable after informed consent is obtained, the law should allow that, under specific circumstances and safeguards, this requirement is put aside to make research in the field of child abuse and neglect possible. What is known: • In principle, data research is only acceptable after informed consent is obtained. • In practice, this is not always feasible. What is new: • Under specific circumstances and safeguards, the informed consent requirement can be put aside.