Summary Of Invasion Of Privacy In Research

One of the main ethical issues that faces health care is the security of patient information. This information is protected by laws and regulations such as HIPPA, but there are still concerns Scott, et al, 2005). Among those concerns is the new concept of electronic patient records and information. These records are designed to help hospitals and doctors get patient information more quickly, so that patients can receive treatment as soon as possible. Unfortunately, anything kept and transmitted on a computer has the potential to be hacked, so that is a serious concern for patients. Not all patients want their medical records to be available electronically, but they may not have too many options (Romano & Stafford, 2010). Opting out may not be an option for them, and if they do have that option it could reduce the speed and quality of treatment that these patients would receive. Do they want to risk that, just so they can feel as though their medical information is better protected?

Patient privacy has been a major concern for patients and medical staff for many years. Patient privacy goes hand in hand with HIPPA and the privacy rule. This protects the privacy of any person of all health information (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010). Even with this a concern for many, a study conducted by Zogby Internation studies more than 2000 adults to obtain their views on patient privacy. This studied determined that individuals would rather have individual choice and control over personal health information instead of others (Patient Privacy Rights, 2010).

Crawford and Schultz (2014) summarized Big Data as “a generalized, imprecise term that refers to the use of large data sets in data science and predictive analytics (p. 96). The various sources of retrieving and generating information has expanded and exposed its vulnerability, especially to health data. A single breach holds risks of sharing critical information from a multitude of patients’ records. Predictive privacy harms, which are collected information that centers on individual data behaviors, have the potential to sidestep existing antidiscrimination regulations, but also lead to privacy breaches in healthcare (Crawford & Schultz, 2014). In the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Jones there were concerns expressed about invasions of privacy that could result in direct collection of large amounts of personal information through Global Position System (GPS) monitoring. This type of governmental power is vulnerable to abuse, endangerment of privacy rights of citizens, and weaken trust in the government (Crawford & Schultz, 2014). Crawford and Schultz (2014) state that John Locke and William Blackstone defined liberty, as it pertains to an individual, as an “unabridged natural right follow his or her own will”. (p.111) In a sense, if an individual believes privacy fits the bill, then it should be respected and left alone. Big Data faces many obstacles when it comes to the topic of privacy. The question of how to correctly respond to each challenge may vary, but success can come if both just and achievable protections are present for those at risk for this type of

Freedom has its limits just like the law. In order to ensure the safety of subjects, freedom to a researcher must

Failure to protect subject’s personal information, is an example of not complying the above two principles in the research industry. Researchers are in a position of dealing with a great deal of very personal information that their participants have agreed to disclose. Depending on the type of study, personal identifiers such as names, birthdates, places of residence etc. may or may not have to be collected. In situations where these data are collected, researchers may take several steps to ensure the confidentiality of their participants’

Privacy is an especially equivocal idea, in particularly because invasion of privacy is a concept that is arguably questionable. Privacy has been defined as the right to be left alone without unwarranted intrusion by government, media, or other institutions or individuals. While this definition serves as a quick start to the right of privacy, there are still several interpretations as to what may or may not constitute as an invasion of privacy. What one person may believe to be an innocent curiosity, another may feel as though it is a deliberate invasion of privacy. Often these disputes make their way into courtrooms and are subjected to controversy and evaluation.

A number of key terms describe the system of ethical considerations that the modern research establishments have set up to protect the rights of research subjects. Voluntary participation and confidentiality are principles that demands that the respondents to be free from coercion in any way when participating in the research, protected in the raw data, and published

Dr. Kemp defines an electronic medical record (EMR) as “the digital version of a paper chart that contains all of a patients ' medical history from one practice” (Kemp, 2014). He also differentiates between the use of the term electronic medical record (EMR) and electronic health record (EHR). An EHR is more “comprehensive” than an EMR. It allows for data sharing across multiple practices. The use of both EMRs and EHRs has gained in notoriety in the last decade. And it appears that the use of these two terms is interchangeable. The idea of data sharing and having one’s health records at the click of a button is highly appealing. While there are several ethical implications to explore when dealing with computerized charting, the objective for this research review will focus primarily on three interesting concepts: autonomy, finance, and privacy, as it relates to information technology.

From a communitarian point of view, giving up some measure of privacy serves the common good. Keeping computerized data on physicians who have had their hospital privileges revoked shadows them long after they paid their dues for the original infractions. Child-care centers can now find out if prospective employees have been convicted of child abuse (Etzioni, A. 1997).” People need to realize you must give a little for the common good.

Moreover, the Privacy Act of 1974 place a concern when it refers to having some control over their(patient's) information. This clearly tells us that the window of privacy is very small. Right's-Based theory states that it is the duty of the government to protect individuals from injury and allow freedom just the same as privacy. Yet, when ethical dilemmas arise the privacy act can be ignored and the rights of people overlooked.

There are ethical issues everywhere one turns, so ethical issues in information systems should not be a new concept or surprise to anyone. There are emerging ethical issues and as information systems progress, new ways to access information becomes available. These issues can play a role in our personal and professional lives, as well as in government and social aspects. There are also ethical issues involved in the medical field. Two big ethical issues that are becoming more prevalent in discussions are tracking devices used for people with dementia and electronic medical records. There are benefits to both of these, but they also have disadvantages as privacy and patients’ rights come into question. These ethical issues are new and therefore

The article Privacy, Neuroscience, and Neuro-Surveillance by Adam D. Moore covers the advances of neuroscience with regards to brain scans and how it can lead to the infringement of privacy rights. Moore argues that there should be a limiting factor when dealing with brain scans. There has to be justified reasons and legal proceedings (similar to entering a private domain) when given the chance to look closely into one’s consciousness (Moore, 2016). Further, Moore defends this very argument by stating that privacy correlates with human well-being, along with the circumstances that privacy served as protection against oppressive totalitarian regimes (Moore, 2016). He also understands that those with the counter-arguments say that

In this paper, I will discuss the principles that permit disclosure of protected health information with or without the patient’s consent for each of the four categories, government agencies, legal agencies or representatives and research groups. I will also state whether I feel privacy safeguards are adequate to support those principles.

Privacy and confidentiality are basic rights in our society. Safeguarding those rights, with respect to an individual’s personal health information, is our ethical and legal obligation as health care providers. Doing so in today’s health care environment is increasingly challenging (OJIN, 2005).

“Respect for human beings involves giving due scope to peoples capacity to make their own decisions. In the research context, this normally requires that participation be the result of a choice made by the participants” (NHMR, 2007, p.3).  Freegard 2012 (p.60), states that “respecting the rights of others,” includes a responsibility for Health professionals “to let others know about their rights” and that this forms the basis of an informed consent.