This article has a correction
Please see: The Icelandic database: do modern times need modern sagas?
- Ruth Chadwick, professor of moral philosophy (r.chadwick@lancaster.ac.uk)
- Centre for Professional Ethics, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE
- Accepted 28 May 1999
On 17 December 1998, as a result of legislation instigated by deCODE genetics, a Delaware biotechnology company working in Reykjavik, the Icelandic parliament adopted a law making it legal for a private company to construct an electronic database of the country's health records.1 deCODE has received an exclusive licence to build a database of Iceland's medical records (including diagnoses and test results, treatments and side effects) and will be able to combine and analyse these with genetic and genealogical data. The act also grants deCODE exclusive rights to commercial exploitation of the database for 12 years. Accordingly, deCODE has entered into a (non-exclusive) arrangement with Hoffmann-La Roche which gives the latter company access to the database for the purpose of researching the genetic origins of 12 common diseases.
Summary points
The government of Iceland has granted an exclusive licence to deCODE genetics to construct a database of the country's health records
Debate about issues of informed consent, privacy, scientific freedom, benefit, and commercial monopoly is vigorous
The question at issue is whether the rules being applied to the database can deal with the issues raised
A debate that focuses on traditional principles risks ignoring new challenges brought about by advances in medical technology
If the role of commercialism is to be assessed and defined appropriately, benefits to the individual and to public health need to be articulated clearly
Are the rules out of date?
The debate before and after the bill on Iceland's proposed database has been vigorous. Sigurdur Gudmundsson, Iceland's surgeon general, was quoted in the New Yorker as saying, “I don't think this country can just sit here and say, ‘Nope, sorry, we are going to stand on rules that existed in a different era for a different world.’”2 But are the rules being applied to the database able to address adequately the issues …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012