Cargando…
How should we think about clinical data ownership?
The concept of ‘ownership’ is increasingly central to debates, in the media, health policy and bioethics, about the appropriate management of clinical data. I argue that the language of ownership acts as a metaphor and reflects multiple concerns about current data use and the disenfranchisement of c...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7279183/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31911499 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105340 |
_version_ | 1783543499330682880 |
---|---|
author | Ballantyne, Angela |
author_facet | Ballantyne, Angela |
author_sort | Ballantyne, Angela |
collection | PubMed |
description | The concept of ‘ownership’ is increasingly central to debates, in the media, health policy and bioethics, about the appropriate management of clinical data. I argue that the language of ownership acts as a metaphor and reflects multiple concerns about current data use and the disenfranchisement of citizens and collectives in the existing data ecosystem. But exactly which core interests and concerns ownership claims allude to remains opaque. Too often, we jump straight from ‘ownership’ to ‘private property’ and conclude ‘the data belongs to the patient’. I will argue here that private property is only one type of relevant relationship between people, communities and data. There are several reasons to doubt that conceptualising data as private property presents a compelling response to concerns about clinical data ownership. In particular I argue that clinical data are co-constructed, so a property account would fail to confer exclusive rights to the patient. A non-property account of ownership acknowledges that the data are ‘about the patient’, and therefore the patient has relevant interests, without jumping to the conclusion that the data ‘belongs to the patient’. On this broader account of ownership, the relevant harm is the severing of the connection between the patient and their data, and the solution is to re-engage and re-connect patients to the data research enterprise. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7279183 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72791832020-06-15 How should we think about clinical data ownership? Ballantyne, Angela J Med Ethics Original Research The concept of ‘ownership’ is increasingly central to debates, in the media, health policy and bioethics, about the appropriate management of clinical data. I argue that the language of ownership acts as a metaphor and reflects multiple concerns about current data use and the disenfranchisement of citizens and collectives in the existing data ecosystem. But exactly which core interests and concerns ownership claims allude to remains opaque. Too often, we jump straight from ‘ownership’ to ‘private property’ and conclude ‘the data belongs to the patient’. I will argue here that private property is only one type of relevant relationship between people, communities and data. There are several reasons to doubt that conceptualising data as private property presents a compelling response to concerns about clinical data ownership. In particular I argue that clinical data are co-constructed, so a property account would fail to confer exclusive rights to the patient. A non-property account of ownership acknowledges that the data are ‘about the patient’, and therefore the patient has relevant interests, without jumping to the conclusion that the data ‘belongs to the patient’. On this broader account of ownership, the relevant harm is the severing of the connection between the patient and their data, and the solution is to re-engage and re-connect patients to the data research enterprise. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-05 2020-01-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7279183/ /pubmed/31911499 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105340 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Ballantyne, Angela How should we think about clinical data ownership? |
title | How should we think about clinical data ownership? |
title_full | How should we think about clinical data ownership? |
title_fullStr | How should we think about clinical data ownership? |
title_full_unstemmed | How should we think about clinical data ownership? |
title_short | How should we think about clinical data ownership? |
title_sort | how should we think about clinical data ownership? |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7279183/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31911499 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105340 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ballantyneangela howshouldwethinkaboutclinicaldataownership |