Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-24hb2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T14:44:04.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Role of State Law in Protecting Human Subjects of Public Health Research and Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Extract

“Public health practice” consists of activities and Programs managed by public health agencies to promote health and prevent disease, injury, and disability. Some of these activities might be deemed to fit within the broad definition of “research” under federal regulations, known as the Common Rule, designed to protect human research subjects. The Common Rule defines research as “a systeniatic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” Public health activities that might under some circumstances be considered research include disease reporting, review of medical records, surveys, interviews, focus groups, specimen collection (blood, urine, etc.), and laboratory testing (both identifiable and anonymous).

There are questions about the extent to which the Common Rule applies or was intended to apply to public health practice: and it has been suggested in any case that Common Rule regulation of public health practice may not be socially optimal for both practical and principled reasons.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

45 C.F.R. § 46.101 et seq (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.102(d) (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Guidelines for defining public health research and public health non-research,” available at: <http://www.cdc.gov/od/ads/opspoll1.htm> (last visited November 4, 2003).+(last+visited+November+4,+2003).>Google Scholar
Burris, S. Buehler, J. Lazarrini, Z. “Applying the Common Rule to public health agencies: Questions and tentative answers about a public health exemption,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 31 (2003): 633648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, H.G., “If 1 am Only for Myself, What am I? A Communitarian Look at the Privacy Stalemate,” American Journal of Law and Medicine, 25 (1999): 203–31; Kass, N.E., “An Ethics Framework for Public Health,” American Journal of Public Health, 91 (2001): 1776–1782; Childress, J.F. Faden, R.R. Gaare, R.D. et al., “Public Health Ethics: Mapping the Terrain,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 30 (2002): 170–178.Google Scholar
National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. (Vol. I. Bethesda, Maryland: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2001): At 36.Google Scholar
McWilliams, R. Hoover-Fong, J. Hamosh, A. Beck, S. Beaty, T. Cutting, G., “Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study,” JAMA, 290(3) (2003): 360366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beh, H.G., “The Role of Institutional Review Boards in Protecting Human Subjects: Are We Really Ready to fix a Broken System?” Law & Psychology Review 26 (2002): 147; Alcaraz, R. Klonoff, E.A. Landrine, H., “The Effects on Children of Participating in Studies of Minors' Access to Tobacco,” Preventive Medicine, 26(2) (1997): 236–240.Google Scholar
Wedeen, R. P., “Consent in Epidemiology: Implications of History for Public Policy,” Archives of Environmental Health, 55(4) (2000): 231239; Weeden, R.P., “Ethics in Public Health Institutions,” American Journal of Public Health, 92(12) (2002): 1884–1885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callahan, D. Jennings, B., “Ethics and Public Health: Forging a Strong Relationship,” American Journal of Public Health, 92 (2002): 169176; Steinberg, K.K., “Ethical Challenges at the Beginning of the Millennium,” Statistics in Medicine, 20 (2001): 1415#x2013;1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, J., “Oversight of Human Subject Research: The Role of the States,” Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants, (Vol. II. Bethesda, Maryland: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2001): M1M20.Google Scholar
NY Pub Health Law § 2441 (2003).Google Scholar
Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act, Cal. Health and Safety Code §§ 24170 et seq (2003).Google Scholar
VA St. § 32.1–162.16 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VA. St. § 32.1–39 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 C.F.R. §§ 46.111(a)(4)–(5), 46.111, 46.117 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritts, J. Goldman, J. Hudson, Z. Berenson, A. Hadley, E., “The State of Health Privacy: An Uneven Terrain: A Comprehensive Survey of State Health Privacy Statutes, (2001), available at <http://www.georgetown.edu/research/ihcrp/privacy/statereport.pdf> (last visited November 4, 2003).+(last+visited+November+4,+2003).>Google Scholar
NE Stat § 71–522 (2003); OR Stat § 433.295 (2003).Google Scholar
CT Stat § 19a-56a (2003); ID Stat § 57–1704 (2003); KS Stat § 211.660 (2003); OK Stat 63:1–552 (2003; TN Stat 68-5-506 (2003).Google Scholar
Rouash, S. Birkhead, G. Koo, D. Cobb, A. Fleming, D., “Mandatory Reporting of Diseases and Conditions by Health Care Professionals and Laboratories,” JAMA, 282 (1999): 164–70.Google Scholar
AR Stat §§ 20-7-301 et seq (2003); Ga Stat 31-7-280 et seq (2003); NH Stat §§ 126:25 et seq (2003); OK Stat tit 63 §§ 1–115 et seq (2003); VA Stat §§ 32.1–276.1 et seq (2003).Google Scholar
OK Stat ti 63 § 1–106 (2003); RI ST 23-1-1 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ND Stat 23–01.3–04 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ND Stat 23–01.3.04 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gostin, L.O., “Health Information Privacy,” Cornell Law Review 80 (1995): 451528.; Gostin, L.O. Lazzarini, Z. Neslund, V.S. Osterholm, M.T., “The Public Health Information Infrastructure: A National Review of the Law on Health Information Privacy,” JAMA, 275 (1996): 1921–1927.Google Scholar
WA Stat § 70.02.050 (2003); MA Stat 111 § 119 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CT Stat § 19a-25 (2003).Google Scholar
35 P.S. § 521.15 (2003); SD Stat § 34-22-12.1 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MA Stat 111 § 119 (2003).Google Scholar
DC Code § 7–131 (2003).Google Scholar
NY Pub Health Law 206(1)(d) (2003); NH Stat 126:1 (2003); Idaho Code § 39–610 (2003).Google Scholar
DE Stat Ti 16 sec. 1231 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Com. v. Moore, 584 A.2d 936, 526 Pa. 152 (1991).Google Scholar
FL Stat § 381.85 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gostin, L.O., Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000): At 70–83; Gostin, L.O. Burris, S. Lazzarini, Z., “The Law and the Public's Health: A Study of Infectious Disease Law in the United States,” Columbia Law Review, 59 (1999): 59–128.Google Scholar
Jew Ho v. Williamson, 103 F. 10 (C.C.N.D. Cal. 1900); School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1987); Bayer, R., Private Acts, Social Consequences: AIDS and the Politics of Public Health (New York: The Free Press, McMillian, Inc., 1989).Google Scholar
Gostin, L.O. Feldblum, C. Webber, D., “Disability Discrimination in America: HIV/AIDS and other Health Conditions,” JAMA, 281 (1999): 745752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barron, P. Goldstein, S.J. Wishnev, K.L., “State Statutes Dealing with HIV and AIDS: A Comprehensive State-by-State Summary,” Law & Sexuality, 5 (1995): 168.Google Scholar
Lazzarini, Z., “A Legal Framework for Clinical Trials in Correctional Settings,” Med Health R I., 83 (2000): 386389; Lazzarini, Z. Altice, F.L., “A Review of the Legal and Ethical Issues for the Conduct of HIV-Related Research in Prisons,” AIDS Public Policy Journal, 15 (2000): 105–35.Google Scholar
Gostin, L. Hodge, J., “The ‘Names Debate’: The Case for National HIV Reporting in the United States,” Albany Law Review, 61 (1998): 679743.Google Scholar
Bayer, R., “The Ethics of Blinded HIV Surveillance Testing,” American Journal of Public Health, 83(4) (1993): 496497; Fairchild, A.L. Bayer, R., “Uses and Abuses of Tuskegee,” Science, 284 (5416) (1999): 919–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burris, S. Gostin, L.O. Tress, D., “Public Health Surveillance of Genetic Information: Ethical and Legal Responses to Social Risk,” In: Khoury, M. Burke, W. Thomson, E., eds. Genetics and Public Health in the 21st Century: Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease, (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000): 527548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Alcarez, et al., supra note 8; Nelson, K. Garcia, R.E. Brown, J. et al., “Do Patient Consent Procedures Affect Participation Rates in Health Services Research?” Medical Care. 40(4) (2002): 283288; Yawn, B.P. Yawn, R.A. Geier, G.R. Xia, Z. Jacobsen, S.J., “The Impact of Requiring Patient Authorization for Use of Data in Medical Records Research,” Journal of Family Practice, 47, no. 5 (1998): 361–365.Google Scholar
Shavers, V.L. Lynch, C.F. Burmeister, L.F., “Knowledge of the Tuskegee Study and its Impact on the Willingness to Participate in Medical Research Studies,” Journal of the National Medical Association, 92, no. 12 (2000): 563572.Google Scholar
See Kass, , supra note 5; O'Neill, O., “Public Health or Clinical Ethics: Thinking Beyond Borders,” Ethics and International Affairs, 16 (2002): 3545.Google Scholar
See Kass, , supra note 5; See Childress, et al., supra note 5; See Callahan, Jennings, , supra note 10; Thomas, J.C. Sage, M. Dillenberg, J. Guillory, V.J., “A Code of Ethics for Public Health,” American Journal of Public Health, 92 (2002): 10571059; Mann, J.M., “Medicine and Public Health, Ethics and Human Rights,” Hastings Center Report, 27 (1997): 6; Institute of Medicine.” Who Will Keep the Public Healthy? Educating Public Health Professionals for the 21st Century, (Washington: National Academy of Sciences, 2002).Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. Pettit, P., “Towards a Consensual Culture in the Ethical Review of Research,” Med J Aust. 169 (1998): 7982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, I. Braithwaite, J., Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate, (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992); Osborne, D. Gaebler, T., Reinventing Government (New York: Plume, 1993).Google Scholar
Teubner, G., “Juridification: Concepts, Aspects, Limits, Solutions,” In: Teubner, G., ed. Juridification of Social Spheres: A Comparative Analysis in the Areas of Labour, Corporate, Antitrust and Social and Welfare Law, (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1987): 389435; Bardach, E., The Implementation Game, (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, I. Braithwaite, J., supra note 48; Black, J., “Proceduralizing Regulation: Part I,” Oxford Journal of Leg Studies, 20(4) (2000): 597614; Black, J., “Proceduralizing Regulation: Part II,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 21(1) (2001): 3–58; Moran, M., “Review Article: Understanding the Regulatory State,” British Journal of Political Science, 32 (002): 391–413; Shearing, C.A., “Constitutive Conception of Regulation,” In: Grabosky, P. Braithwaite, J., eds. Business Regulation and Australia's Future, (Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 1993).Google Scholar
Scott, C., “Analyzing Regulatory Space: Fragmented Resources and Institutional Design,” Public Law, (2001): 329353.Google Scholar
Lessig, L., Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, (New York: Basic Books, 1999).Google Scholar
Katyal, N.K., “Architecture as Crime Control,” Yale Law Journal, 111 (2002): 10391139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute. A2d. Vol 782: Md; 2001:807.Google Scholar