Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This article answers two questions from the perspective of United Kingdom law and policy: (i) is health information property? and (ii) should it be? We argue that special features of health information make it unsuitable for conferral of property rights without an extensive system of data-specific rules, like those that govern intellectual property. Additionally, we argue that even if an extensive set of rules were developed, the advantages of a property framework to govern health information would be slight: propertization is unlikely to enhance patient self-determination, increase market efficiency, provide patients a foothold in the data economy, clarify legal uses of information, or encourage data-driven innovation. The better approach is to rely less, not more, on property. We recommend a regulatory model with four signature features: (i) substantial protection for personal health data similar to the GDPR with transparent limits on how, when, and by whom patient data can be accessed, used, and transmitted; (ii) input from relevant stakeholders; (iii) interoperability; and (iv) greater research into a health-data service, rather than goods, model.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Kathleen Liddell
David Simón
Anneke Lucassen
Journal of Law and the Biosciences
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Liddell et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69d6cb42e328128020aa8532 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab023