Consent for Medical Device Registries: Commentary on Schofield, B. (2013) The Role of Consent and Individual Autonomy in the PIP Breast Implant Scandal
Public Health Ethics 6 (2):226-229 (2013)
Abstract
The clinical introduction of medical devices often occurs with relatively little oversight, regulation and (long-term) follow-up. Some recent controversies underscore the weaknesses of the current regime, such as the complications surrounding the metal-on-metal hip implants and the scandal surrounding the global breast implant scare of silicone implants made by France's Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) Company. The absence of national registries hampered the collection of reliable information on the risks and harms of the PIP breast implants. To warrant long-term safety, a case can be made for mandatory post-marketing surveillance by means of the establishment of compulsory registries. In this edition of Public Health Ethics, Schofield calls for debate on how such a registry system should be initiated and maintained and how it would relate to the ethical requirement of consent. Here we use breast implant registries as a case to discuss whether and when a so-called ‘thick opt-out’ would be an appropriate method to include people in medical device registries. We conclude that a thick opt-out procedure for medical device registries is only justifiable in cases where inclusion does not involve burdens (or very low), when it does not involve a sensitive subject and when the data are stored anonymously (or at least not directly linked to the medical record). Otherwise, inclusion should be sought by means of an opt-inAuthor's Profile
DOI
10.1093/phe/pht021
My notes
Similar books and articles
The Role of Consent and Individual Autonomy in the PIP Breast Implant Scandal.B. Schofield - 2013 - Public Health Ethics 6 (2):220-223.
Where should we draw the line between quality of care and other ethical concerns related to medical registries and biobanks?Mats Hansson - 2012 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33 (4):313-323.
Beauty and Breast Implantation: How Candidate Selection Affects Autonomy and Informed Consent.Lisa S. Parker - 1995 - Hypatia 10 (1):183 - 201.
Variation in recruitment across sites in a consent-based clinical data registry: lessons from the Canadian Stroke Network. [REVIEW]Donald Willison, Moira Kapral, Pierrot Peladeau, Janice Richards, Jiming Fang & Frank Silver - 2006 - BMC Medical Ethics 7 (1):1-8.
On Taylor's justification of medical informed consent.Jukka Varelius - 2012 - Bioethics 26 (4):207-214.
Ethical Issues in the Use of Implanted Medical Devices.Anne Moates - 2006 - Chisholm Health Ethics Bulletin 11 (3):9.
The medical decision-making process and the family: The case of breast cancer patients and their husbands.Roy Gilbar & Ora Gilbar - 2009 - Bioethics 23 (3):183-192.
"If you think you've got a lump, they'll screen you." Informed consent, health promotion, and breast cancer.N. Pfeffer - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (2):227-230.
Issues of consent and feedback in a genetic epidemiological study of women with breast cancer.M. P. M. Richards - 2003 - Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (2):93-96.
The Limits of Consent: A Socio-Ethical Approach to Human Subject Research in Medicine.Oonagh Corrigan (ed.) - 2009 - Oxford University Press.
Consent gained from patients after breast surgery for the use of surplus tissue in research: an exploration.S. Hamilton, J. Hepper, A. Hanby & J. Hewison - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (4):229-233.
Protecting the Vulnerable: Autonomy and Consent in Health Care.Margaret Brazier & Mary Lobjoit (eds.) - 1991 - Routledge.
Analytics
Added to PP
2013-07-17
Downloads
94 (#132,771)
6 months
1 (#449,220)
2013-07-17
Downloads
94 (#132,771)
6 months
1 (#449,220)
Historical graph of downloads