Procedures for the ethical review of public health surveillance protocols

Procedures for the ethical review of public health surveillance protocols

Blog Article

The present commentary is based on the following considerations: 1) for the purposes of authorisation, a distinction is drawn between "research" and "intervention".The procedures for authorising the former are more complex, the relevant controls are stricter and approval has to be granted by a Research Ethics Committee (REC); 2) although the debate is still open, it is barely read more credible to claim that public health surveillance is not a form of research.It should, therefore, be subject to rigorous ethical assessment; 3) when addressing specifically the issue of surveillance, it would be appropriate to shift the focus of attention from the type of procedure (research/intervention) to the risk implied in that procedure; 4) much emphasis has hitherto been placed on the risks that public health surveillance may imply read more for the protection of personal data; 5) the emphasis on the protection of personal data is frequently excessive and the risks should be examined in a broader context.