Advertisement

Informed Consent and Research Biobanks: A Challenge in Three Dimensions

  • Matteo MacilottiEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The debate about the requirements of informed consent in research biobanks has been heated in the last few years. This debate originates from the peculiarity that characterises the condition of tissue stored in a biobank. Unlike in the traditional research setting, tissue stored in a biobank is not only collected for a specific research project but for an undetermined future research projects as well. Therefore, it appears difficult to inform the person (from whom tissue is obtained) about all possible research projects in which tissue could be used. Against this backdrop, the ethical and legal scholarship has started to explore if “less informed” consent models could be considered legally and ethically acceptable in the research biobank context. Many models have been proposed. The range varies from fully informed consent to blanket-consent models, passing through partially restricted consent, and the so-called broad-consent models. In these models, it is not only the “level” of information that changes, but also the aims of the informational process. In the model of “fully informed consent”, the core of the informational process is represented by the specific research project, while in the “broad-consent model”, the information provided aims to illustrate the features of the “governance” of the biobank where tissue is stored. Therefore, from consent on the specific research project, we are moving towards consent on a model of governance.

To determine whether this switch can be legally acceptable, it is crucial to analyse the peculiar interests (legally recognised) at stake, in order to identify if a “broader” consent is also adequate to protect the rights of the person involved. In this contribution, I argue that tissue can be viewed via three different dimensions. Firstly, tissue represents a material res that “occupies a space” and has its own consistency. From this point of view, the main issue is to determine if this res can be owned, who assumes its ownership, and more broadly who maintains its control. Second, human tissue can be seen as a source of data, and in particular of genetic data. In this case, the crucial issue is to establish the rights of a person on the data obtained from tissue. It is likewise necessary to establish if the person has the right to consent for the use of these data in biobanking, if they can limit the access to these data, and if they can withdraw their consent. Eventually, it is also necessary to establish the effects of the withdrawal of such consent on the data and tissue. Third, human tissue derives from the human body. The distinction between these three dimensions (that we will call “material”, “informational” and “relational”) is only theoretical, given that in nature these three dimensions of human tissue are inextricably linked to one another and the bundles of rights originated from them overlap. Therefore, to understand the rights of the human subjects, it is not sufficient to study the characteristics of these three dimensions but it is also necessary to analyse how these dimensions are related to each other.

Keywords

Human Tissue Personal Data Legal Concept Informational Dimension English Court 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This article has been developed in the project “Trentino-PCOFUND-GA-2008-226070” granted by Autonomous Province of Trento and the European Commission.

References

  1. Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party (2011) Opinion 15/2011 on the definition of consent. Adopted on 13 July 2011Google Scholar
  2. Becker LC (1980) The Moral Basis of Property Rights. In: Pennock RJ (ed) Property. New York University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. BeVier LR (1988) Information about individuals in the hands of government: some reflections on mechanisms for privacy protection. Wm Mary Bill Rts J 4(2):455–506Google Scholar
  4. Bjorkman B, Hansson SO (2006) Bodily rights and property rights. J Med Ethics 32:209–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cambon-Thomsen A (2004) The social and ethical issues of post-genomic human biobanks. Nat Rev Gen 5:866–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caulfield T, Upshur R, Daar A (2003) DNA databanks and consent: a suggested policy option involving an authorization model. BMC Med Ethics 4:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coing H, Lawson FH, Gronfors K (1959) Das subjective Recht und der Rechtsschutz der Personlichkeit, Frankfurt am Main-BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. Cribbet JE (1986) Concepts in transition: the search for a new definition of property. Univ Illinois Law Rev 1Google Scholar
  9. Criscuoli G (1985) L’acquisto delle parti staccate del proprio corpo e gli art. 820-821 c.c. Riv. dir. fam., XIV:271Google Scholar
  10. Dickens BM (1977) The control of living body materials. Univ Toronto Law J 27(2):142–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dworkin G, Kennedy I (1993) Human tissue: rights in the body and its parts. Med Law Rev 1(3):291–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elger BS, Caplan AL (2006) Consent and anonymization in research involving biobanks. EMBO Rep 7(7):661–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goold I (2005) Sounds suspiciously like property treatment: does human tissue fit within the common law concept of property? Univ Technol Sydney Law Rev 3Google Scholar
  14. Green MJ (2003) “Genetic exceptionalism” in medicine: clarifying the differences between genetic and nongenetic test. Ann Intern Med 138(7):571–575Google Scholar
  15. Hammond C (2002) Property rights in human corpses and human tissue: the position in Western Australia. Univ Notre Dame Aust Law Rev 4:97–114Google Scholar
  16. Hardcastle R (2007) Law and the human body. Property rights, ownership and control. Hart, Oxford/PortlandGoogle Scholar
  17. Hawkins N (2010) Human gene patents and genetic testing in Europe: a reappraisal. Scripted 7(3):453–473Google Scholar
  18. Honoré T (1961) Ownership. In: Guest AG (ed) Oxford essays in jurisprudence. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoppe N (2009) Bioequity—property and the human body. Ashgate, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  20. Kanellopoulou N (2009) Reconsidering altruism, introducing reciprocity and empowerment in the governance of biobanks in the UK. In: Kaye, Stranger (eds) Principles and practice in biobank governance. Ashgate, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  21. Kegley JA (2004) Challenges to informed consent. EMBO Rep 5:832–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kirchhoffer DG, Dierickx K (2011) Human dignity and human tissue: a meaningful ethical relationship? J Med Ethics 37(9):552–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kommers DP (1997) The constitutional jurisprudence of the federal republic of Germany. Duke University Press Books, Durham/LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Laurie G (2002) Genetic privacy, a challenge to medical legal norms. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCarthy JT (2005) The right of publicity and privacy. West Group, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  26. Murray TH (1997) Genetic exceptionalism and “future diaries”: is genetic information different from other medical information? In: Rothstein MA (ed) Genetic secrets: protecting privacy and confidentiality in the genetic era. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  27. Poste G (1999) Privacy and confidentiality in the age of genetic engineering. Tex Rev Law Politics 4(1):25–32Google Scholar
  28. Quigley M (2009) Property the future of human tissue? Med Law Rev 17:457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Radin MJ (1987) Market-inalienability. Harv Law Rev 100:1849–1937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Radin MJ (2003) The rethoric of alienation. In: Radin MJ (ed) Reinterpreting property. University of Chicago Press, Chicago/LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Rothstein MA (2005) Genetic exceptionalism and legislative pragmatism. Hasting Center Rep 35(Suppl 2):59–65Google Scholar
  32. Sidgwick H (1891) Elements of politics. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith JC (1976) Legal obligation. The Athlone Press, University of London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Solove DJ (2002) Conceptualizing privacy. Cal Law Rev 90:1087–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Solove DJ (2006) A taxonomy of privacy. Penn Law Rev 154:477–564Google Scholar
  36. Stanley P (2008) The law of confidentiality: a restatement. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Waldron J (1985) What is private property? Oxford Legal Stud 5(3):313–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Warren SD, Brandeis LD (1980) The right to privacy. Harv Law Rev 4:193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Whitman JQ (2004) The two western cultures of privacy: dignity versus liberty. Yale Law J 113:1151–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Whitty NR (2005) Rights of personality. Property rights and the human body in Scots law. Edinb Law Rev 9:194–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wittgenstein L (1958) Philosophical investigations. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Zatti P (2007) Il corpo e la nebulosa dell’appartenenza. Nuova Giur Civ Comm II:3Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations