1 / 19

Human Genome Research Project University of Otago Funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation

Human Genome Research Project University of Otago Funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation. Newborn Screening:. Envisioning Changing Expectations and Future Proofing. Richman Wee Project Manager Law Foundation-sponsored Human Genome Research Project. Prelude.

brendy
Download Presentation

Human Genome Research Project University of Otago Funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Human Genome Research Project University of Otago Funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation

  2. Newborn Screening: Envisioning Changing Expectations and Future Proofing Richman Wee Project Manager Law Foundation-sponsored Human Genome Research Project

  3. Prelude • What started off interest in this • Own thinking to date - tidying up the ‘clutter’ re presentation at H Screening Symposium Oct2005 - ‘dancing around the most stirring issue’, re informed consent

  4. Today Look at the issue of ‘Informed Consent’ blood spot collection use (immediate and subsequent/secondary) storage/destruction/return transfer Parental consent Decision-making authority and process… awareness, communication, information disclosure, participation for the responsible care of and interest of newborns

  5. Re-examining & Rethinking Language and Concepts (Legal/Ethical) Roles Interests Purpose(s) Purpose(s) & Expectation(s) Rights Responsibilities Consent Authorisation Picture: UK Newb Scn Prog Ctr, Policies and standards, Apr 2005, page 23

  6. Interests of various parties • Whose and what interests? • Taking stock, weighing, reconciling all interests, to extent possible, with the aim of • advancing relevant and key interests • Balancing likelihood of Harm vs Benefit • How can joint/shared responsibilities, duties and rights – generally and overall –be better exercised or respected in the (best) interest of relevant party/ies? • Sense of time: immediate, short-term, long-term

  7. and the bigger picture … • How … • - provide benefits and protect from harm • - promote relevant interests as best as possible • - fulfil the purpose(s) intended/agreed … keeping clearly • in mind and observing the central purpose • - meet expectations • - help & support decision-makers exercise their • responsibilities • ?

  8. Interests – whose ?

  9. Expectations • Expectations within, and broadening, the • context of the ‘purpose(s)’ of an • intervention Whose? What? When? Why? How to meet them?

  10. Responsibilities (cf rights) … for care of the newborn Newborn

  11. Authorisation - Examining ‘Consent’ Justification: Not necessary? Not desirable? Not practicable?

  12. Authorisation - Comparing and Examining ‘Consent’ ‘Types’ of Consent (cf. Refusal): A. Explicit / Express Consent* B. Exceptions to explicit / express consent* 1. Emergency* 2. Legislation* (Statutory Authorisation) – public health, mental health legislation *as per Wildeman & Downie

  13. Authorisation - Comparing and Examining ‘Consent’ • C. Implied Consent* • (1) Subsumed Consent* • i. sub-procedure or necessarily incidental to • procedure explicitly consented to • ii. contains a blanket consent to other • unspecified procedures • - significant nexus • *As per Wildeman & Downie

  14. Authorisation - Comparing and Examining ‘Consent’ • C. Implied Consent (cont.) * • (2) Consent inferred from conduct* • (3) Routine procedures* • (4) ‘Reasonable’ consent* • D. No Consent (Arguments from Impracticality*) • (1) Too costly* • (2) Too complex* • *as per Wildeman & Downie

  15. Authorisation - Comparing and Examining ‘Consent’ Presumed Consent (Iceland Biobank, cadaveric organ procurement) Deferred Consent (emergency research) Generic Consent for Genetic Screening (Annas 1994) Proxy Consent (children, organ donation by legally competent, some research contexts) Substitute / Surrogate Consent (legally incompetent, PVS, circumcision)

  16. Authorisation • Who from? • Hierarchical (legally recognised) ordering ? • What (substantive/content) ? • When seek it ? • How seek it ?

  17. Authorisation • Not intended to circumvent/undermine the notion of Consent • Intended, as a starting point, to reflect and convey more accurately what is going on • Promote relevant interests and meet expectations • Support responsible care of newborns

  18. Postlude • Voluntary participation having ‘built-in barometer’ as an indicator … also requiring initiatives to support promotion of awareness & understanding • Community/ies-dependent over time (bottom-up cf top-down, but consider dynamic exchange)

  19. Led by Prof Mark Henaghan, Dean of Law, Otago Sponsored by NZ Law Foundation web: www.otago.ac.nz/law/genome e-mail: genome.lawpolicy@otago.ac.nz

More Related