Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Buchtitelbild

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

An Unclear Question: Who Owns Patient Information?

A Kantian Take on the Concept of Datenherrschaft

verfasst von : Jani Koskinen, Kai K. Kimppa

Erschienen in: Technology and Intimacy: Choice or Coercion

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Patient information systems are critical instruments in modern healthcare; thus, modern healthcare systems cannot function properly without them. While there are countless varieties of information systems used in healthcare, there is one overarching commonality among them – they all contain information about patients. Different groups involved in healthcare have an interest in patients’ information for different reasons. However, in many countries, it remains unclear who exactly owns the data. This issue thus needs to be resolved. As ethics is critical in determining the justifiable owner of patient information, any legislative solution to competing interests ought to be ethically well justified. In this paper, we argue that an ethically acceptable formulation of the ownership of patient data has already been suggested and that it can be further justified also through the Kantian tradition.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Nächstes Kapitel Ethical Gathering of Exercise Metrics from Elderly: Case Jumppatikku
Fußnoten
1
There are of course other traditions, but the authors want to underline the differences between the United States and (particularly continental) Europe, which have been the main traditions of relevance to this topic.
 
2
We use the term patient information (system) to avoid the problem of different terms being used, for example, electronic health record (ERH) or electronic medical record (EMR) etc. What is important is that the patient information system, or whichever term is used, stores information about the patient.
 
3
Laki potilaan asemasta ja oikeuksista 785/1992.
 
4
Laki sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon asiakastietojen sähköisestä käsittelystä 2007/159.
 
5
Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön asetus potilasasiakirjoista 298/2009.
 
6
[11 p. 229].
 
7
[9 p. 54].
 
8
The author notes that in healthcare, patients are not treated as objects in the sense that they do not have rights; they are ‘objects’ for healthcare in the sense that healthcare contains information designed for healthcare professionals about patients, and by mixing this information and professional work, healthcare executes the medical tasks appointed to it.
 
Literatur
1.
Hall, M., Schulman, K.: Ownership of medical information. JAMA: J. Am. Med. Assoc. 301(12), 1282–1284 (2009)CrossRef
2.
Rodwin, M.: The case for public ownership of patient data. JAMA: J. Am. Med. Assoc. 302(1), 86–88 (2009)CrossRef
3.
Rodwin, M.: Patient data: property, privacy and the public interest. Am. J. Law Med. 36(44), 586–618 (2010)
4.
Evans, B.: Would patient ownership of health data improve confidentiality? AMA J. Ethics 14(9), 724–734 (2012)
5.
Koskinen, J., Kainu, V., Kimppa, K.: The concept of Datenherrschaft of patient information from a Lockean perspective. J. Inf. Commun. Ethics. Soc. 14(1), 70–86 (2016)CrossRef
6.
Evans, B.: Much ado about data ownership. Harvard J. Law Technol. 25(1), 69–130 (2011)
7.
Kierkegaard, P.: Electronic health record: wiring Europe’s healthcare. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 27(5), 503–515 (2011)CrossRef
8.
Di Iorio, C.T., Carinci, F., Oderkirk, J.: Health research and systems’ governance are at risk: should the right to data protection override health? J. Med. Ethics 40(7), 488–492 (2014)CrossRef
9.
Kainu, V., Koskinen, J.: Between public and personal information – not prohibited, therefore permitted. In: Bottis, M. (ed.) Privacy and Surveillance: Current Aspects and Future Perspectives, pp. 45–59. Nomiki Bibliothiki, Athens (2012)
10.
Kainu, V., Koskinen, J.: Why (an) ethics code for information system development needs institutional support: there is even an upside for computing practitioners and businesses. In: Proceedings of ETHICOMP 2014 (2014)
11.
Wiesing, U.: Immanuel Kant, his philosophy and medicine. Med. Health Care Philos. 11(2), 221–236 (2008)CrossRef
12.
Deber, R.B., Kraetschmer, N., Urowitz, S., Sharpe, N.: Do people want to be autonomous patients? Preferred roles in treatment decision-making in several patient populations. Health Expect. 10(3), 248–258 (2007)CrossRef
13.
Lee, Y.-Y., Lin, J.L.: Do patient autonomy preferences matter? Linking patient-centered care to patient–physician relationships and health outcomes. Social Sci. Med. 71(10), 1811–1818 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRef
14.
Lahtiranta, J., Koskinen, J., Knaapi-Junnila, S., Nurminen, M.: Sensemaking in the personal health space. Inf. Technol. People 28(4), 790–805 (2015)CrossRef
15.
Koskinen, J., Knaapi-Junnila, S.: Information technology – the unredeemed opportunity to reduce cultural and social capital gap between citizens and professionals in healthcare. In: Kimppa, K., Whitehouse, D., Kuusela, T., Phahlamohlaka, J. (eds.) ICT and Society, pp. 333–346. Springer, London (2014)
16.
Goldstein, M.M.: Health information technology and the idea of informed consent. J. Law Med. Ethics 38(1), 27–35 (2010)CrossRef
17.
Mead, N., Bower, P.: Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Soc. Sci. Med. 51(7), 1087–1110 (2000)CrossRef
18.
Donnelly, W.: Viewpoint: patient-centered medical care requires a patient-centered medical record. Acad. Med. 80(1), 33–38 (2005)CrossRef
19.
Hiscock, M., Shuldham, C.: Patient centred leadership in practice. J. Nurs. Manag. 16(8), 900–904 (2008)CrossRef
20.
Holmström, I., Röing, M.: The relation between patient-centeredness and patient empowerment: a discussion on concepts. Patient Educ. Couns. 79(2), 167–172 (2010)CrossRef
21.
Rappaport, J.: Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: toward a theory for community psychology. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 15(2), 121–148 (1987)CrossRef
22.
Zimmerman, M.: Psychological empowerment: issues and illustrations. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 23(5), 581–599 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRef
23.
Sjöstrand, M., Eriksson, S., Juth, N., Helgesson, G.: Paternalism in the name of autonomy. J. Med. Philos. 38(6), 710–724 (2013)CrossRef
24.
Kant, I.: Grundlegung zur Metaphysic der Sitten [Several translations used; main translation: Liddel B. Kant on the foundation of morality - a modern version of the Grundlegung]. Indiana University Press, Indiana (1785/1970)
25.
Feldman, F.: Introductory Ethics. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey (1978)
26.
Taylor, R.: A Kantian defense of self-ownership. J. Polit. Philos. 12(1), 65–78 (2004)CrossRef
27.
Spriggs, M., Arnold, M.V., Pearce, C.M., Fry, C.: Ethical questions must be considered for electronic health records. J. Med. Ethics 38(9), 535–539 (2012)CrossRef
28.
Gillon, R.: Ethics needs principles – four can encompass the rest – and respect for autonomy should be ‘first among equals’. J. Med. Ethics 29(5), 307–312 (2003)CrossRef
29.
Beauchamp, T., Childress, J.: Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)
30.
Manson, N.C.: Why do patients want information if not to take part in decision making? J. Med. Ethics 36(12), 834–837 (2010)CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
An Unclear Question: Who Owns Patient Information?
verfasst von
Jani Koskinen
Kai K. Kimppa
Copyright-Jahr
2016
Buch
Technology and Intimacy: Choice or Coercion

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44804-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-44805-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2016

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44805-3_1

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise