The Public Interest Requirement in the Secondary Use of Health Data in Scientific Research: The Examples of Estonia and Finland

Maret Kruus
{"title":"The Public Interest Requirement in the Secondary Use of Health Data in Scientific Research: The Examples of Estonia and Finland","authors":"Maret Kruus","doi":"10.12697/ji.2023.32.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) foresees a flexible data processing regime for conducting scientific research with health data. This regime also enables extensive limitations on data subjects' rights to privacy and self-determination. Concern has been expressed that the notion of 'scientific research' may encompass conducting also profit-oriented commercial research that might not justify such limitations to data subjects' rights. Some authors have suggested a restriction on benefiting from the flexible scientific research regime: public interest should be set as a prerequisite for any scientific research employing health data without the data subject's consent. While the GDPR does not explicitly require that scientific research be in the public interest, it allows Member States to choose their policies. In light of this, the article examines the examples of Estonia and Finland to analyse whether national law should require the processing of health data in scientific research in the absence of the data subject's consent to be in the public interest. The article demonstrates on the basis of the two countries’ examples that it is possible to set a public interest standard without explicitly requiring the existence of a public interest via national legislation. Considering the future, the article also shows that, under the proposed European Health Data Space regulation, Member States may retain the public interest standard through the ethics-review requirement in their national law. \n","PeriodicalId":55758,"journal":{"name":"Juridica International","volume":"33 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Juridica International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12697/ji.2023.32.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) foresees a flexible data processing regime for conducting scientific research with health data. This regime also enables extensive limitations on data subjects' rights to privacy and self-determination. Concern has been expressed that the notion of 'scientific research' may encompass conducting also profit-oriented commercial research that might not justify such limitations to data subjects' rights. Some authors have suggested a restriction on benefiting from the flexible scientific research regime: public interest should be set as a prerequisite for any scientific research employing health data without the data subject's consent. While the GDPR does not explicitly require that scientific research be in the public interest, it allows Member States to choose their policies. In light of this, the article examines the examples of Estonia and Finland to analyse whether national law should require the processing of health data in scientific research in the absence of the data subject's consent to be in the public interest. The article demonstrates on the basis of the two countries’ examples that it is possible to set a public interest standard without explicitly requiring the existence of a public interest via national legislation. Considering the future, the article also shows that, under the proposed European Health Data Space regulation, Member States may retain the public interest standard through the ethics-review requirement in their national law.
在科学研究中二次使用健康数据的公共利益要求:爱沙尼亚和芬兰的例子
一般数据保护条例》(GDPR)为利用健康数据开展科学研究提供了灵活的数据处理机制。该制度还允许对数据主体的隐私权和自决权进行广泛限制。有人表示担心,"科学研究 "的概念可能也包括进行以盈利为目的的商业研究,这可能无法证明对数据主体权利的限制是合理的。一些作者建议限制从灵活的科学研究制度中获益:应将公共利益作为在未经数据主体同意的情况下使用健康数据进行任何科学研究的先决条件。虽然 GDPR 没有明确要求科学研究必须符合公共利益,但它允许成员国选择自己的政策。有鉴于此,文章研究了爱沙尼亚和芬兰的例子,以分析国家法律是否应要求在科学研究中未经数据主体同意的健康数据处理符合公共利益。文章以这两个国家的例子为基础,证明了在不通过国家立法明确要求存在公共利益的情况下制定公共利益标准是可行的。考虑到未来,文章还表明,根据拟议的欧洲健康数据空间法规,成员国可通过其国内法中的伦理审查要求保留公共利益标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信