Pharmaceutical information systems and possible implementations of informed consent - developing an heuristic

BMC Medical Ethics

Søren Holm¹  Thomas Ploug² 

[1] Center for Medical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway;Centre for Applied Ethics and Philosophy of Science, Department of Communication, Aalborg University Copenhagen, A. C. Meyers Vænge, 2450, København SV, Denmark

关键词: Routinisation;    Informed consent;    Health information systems;    Health information;    Control;    Autonomy;   

Others  :  800012
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6939-13-30

 received in 2012-04-26, accepted in 2012-10-17,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Denmark has implemented a comprehensive, nationwide pharmaceutical information system, and this system has been evaluated by the Danish Council of Ethics. The system can be seen as an exemplar of a comprehensive health information system for clinical use.

Analysis

The paper analyses 1) how informed consent can be implemented in the system and how different implementations create different impacts on autonomy and control of information, and 2) arguments directed towards justifying not seeking informed consent in this context.

Results and Conclusion

Based on the analysis a heuristic is provided which enables a ranking and estimation of the impact on autonomy and control of information of different options for consent to entry of data into the system and use of data from the system.

The danger of routinisation of consent is identified.

The Danish pharmaceutical information system raises issues in relation to autonomy and control of information, issues that will also occur in relation to other similar comprehensive health information systems. Some of these issues are well understood and their impact can be judged using the heuristic which is provided. More research is, however needed in relation to routinisation of consent.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Ploug and Holm; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Cross M: England sets up task force to hasten use of electronic records. BMJ 2006, 332(7556):1467.
• [2]Watson N: Patients should have to opt out of national electronic care records - For. BMJ 2006, 333(7557):39-42.
• [3]Halamka JD: Patients should have to opt out of national electronic care records – Against. BMJ 2006, 333(7557):39-42.
• [4]Baird G: Confidentialiy: what everyone should know, or, rather, shouldn’t. Br J Gen Pract 2008, 58(47):131-133.
• [5]Halford S, Obstfelder A, Lotherington AT: Beyond implementation and resistance: hot the delivery of ICT policy is reshaping healthcare. Policy & Politics 2009, 37(1):113-128.
• [6]Ministry of Health: Lov om ændring af lov om offentlig sygesikring (Law on changing the law on National Health Service). Copenhagen; 2003. https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=9727 webcite
• [7]Ministry of Health: Sundhedsloven (The Health Law). Copenhagen; 2010. https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=130455&exp=1 webcite
• [8]The Danish Council of Ethics: Det fælles medicinkort. Copenhagen: The Shared Medicine Profile; 2010.
• [9]Beauchamp TL, Childress JF: Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.
• [10]Feinberg J: Autonomy. In The Inner Citadel – Essays in Individual Autonomy. Edited by Christman J. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989:27-53.
• [11]Ploug T: The Ethical Significance of Expectations and the Case of Microsoft Office Accounting. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 2010., 4(2)
• [12]Berofsky B: Liberation From Self: A Theory of Personal Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995.
• [13]Dworkin G: The Concept of Autonomy. In The Inner Citadel – Essays in Individual Autonomy. Edited by Christman J. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989:54-62.
• [14]Frankfurt H: Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person. In The Inner Citadel – Essays in Individual Autonomy. Edited by Christman J. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989:63-76.
• [15]Kant I: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1997.
• [16]Hill TE: The Kantian Conception of Autonomy. In The Inner Citadel – Essays in Individual Autonomy. Edited by Christman J. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989:91-108.
• [17]Ong LML, De Haes JCJM, Hoos AM, Lammes FB: Doctor-Patient Communication: A Review of the Literature. Soc Sci Med 1995, 40(7):903-918.
• [18]Kreuter MW, Bull FC, Clark EM, Oswald DL: Understanding how people process health information: A comparison of tailored and non-tailored weight-loss material. Health Psychol 1999, 18(5):487-494.
• [19]Koo MM, Krass I, Aslani P: Factors Influencing Consumer Use of Written Drug Information. Ann Pharmacother 2003, 37:259-267.
• [20]Zarcadoolas C, Pleasant A, Greer DS: Understanding health literacy: an expanded model. Health Promot Int 2005, 20(2):195-203.
• [21]Holm S, Madsen SM: Informed consent in medical research – A procedure stretched beyond breaking point. In The Limits of Consent. Edited by Corrigan O, McMillan J, Liddell K, Richards M, Weijer C. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009:11-24.
• [22]Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, Benson P, Winslade W: False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent Rep 1987, 17:20-24.
• [23]Elbourne D, Snowdon C, Garcia J: Informed consent Subjects may not understand concept of clinical trials. Br Med J 1997, 315:248-249.
• [24]Faden RR, Beauchamp T: A history and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.
• [25]Featherstone K, Donovan JL: Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients' perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 1998, 317:1177-1180.
• [26]Featherstone K, Donovan JL: Why don't they just tell me straight, why allocate it?" The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trial. Soc Sci Med 2002, 55:709-719.
• [27]Buchanan E, Brock DW: Deciding for Others – The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
• [28]Brock DW: Decisionmaking Competence and Risk. Bioethics 1991, 5:105-112.
• [29]Buchanan A: Mental capacity, legal competence and consent to treatment. J R Soc Med 2004, 97:415-420.
• [30]Freedman B: Competence, Marginal and Otherwise – Concepts and Ethics. Int J Law Psychiatry 1981, 4:53-72.