Legal scholars, lawyers, and human rights advocates are often prone to believe that global health and human rights issues can be best addressed through law and litigation.  But do they always make a positive difference to the disadvantaged or do they sometimes augment the inequities they are intended to remedy? This is the core theme that runs as a thread through the international Global Health Law Conference that is taking place in Toronto on May 4-5, 2012.  At this conference, leading Canadian and international scholars, policy-makers, practicing lawyers and health care professionals will explore how law can address and make progressive change to global health challenges including: access to care and essential medicines for the most vulnerable; regulating medical tourism; ensuring equitable access to high quality healthcare; addressing the spread of chronic diseases and obesity; access to medicines in a global free-trade environment; and the global politics of health care.

Various intellectual property (IP) and international trade law issues which pervade some of the most burning global health challenges will be debated at the conference. One presentation will explore, for example, the difficult challenge of promoting affordable drug development to address health needs faced by developing and middle income nations under the current international patent regime. Another presenter will discuss the importance of developing a global governance regime to ensure access to reliable safety and effectiveness information. The connection between international trade agreements and human rights will come up in discussions related to pharmaceuticals, but also in the context of presentations on reproductive tourism. Other presentations will focus on tobacco control, the governance of non-communicable diseases, and the role of law in protecting vulnerable populations. James Morone of Brown University will further give a visionary plenary presentation looking at the future of health care in light of the technological changes we are facing, with the intriguing title “Creaky Policies in Nanotime: How will Health Care Systems Cope with Global Age."

The conference further features a keynote panel debate:  "Can Law Meet Global Health Challenges?  Perspectives from Medicine and Politics", with as panelists: Abdallah S. Daar, Senior Scientist, the McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health & & Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto; Theodore R. Marmor, Health Care Policy, Politics and Law Expert, Yale University; Michael Ignatieff, Senior Resident, Massey College, University of Toronto; and James Orbinski, Chair and Professor in Global Health, Dalla Lana School of Public Health; Co-Director, Global Health Diplomacy Program, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto

For Ontario lawyers, this program can be applied towards the 9 Substantive Hours of annual Continuing Professional Development (CPD) required by the Law Society of Upper Canada. The program may also be applicable towards up to 15 CPD hours for other jurisdictions within Canada and the U.S. Practitioners from these jurisdictions should confirm the applicability with their local law societies.

Trudo Lemmens is an Associate Professor in the Faculties of Law and Medicine of the University of Toronto, and a member of the Joint Centre for Bioethics and the Centre for Ethics.

The post Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law appeared first on IPOsgoode.

This international conference will bring together leading scholars, policy-makers, lawyers, physicians and other health care professionals to explore how law can address global health challenges and make real change. The conference includes a keynote panel debate entitled: “Can Law Meet Global Health Challenges?  Perspectives from Medicine and Politics” with Abdallah S. Daar, Senior Scientist, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto; Theodore Marmor, Health Care Policy, Politics and Law Expert, Yale University; Michael Ignatieff, Former Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada & Senior Fellow of Massey College, University of Toronto; and James Orbinski, Chair of Global Health at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto and former President of the International Council of Médecins Sans Frontières.

The conference will also feature a Keynote Public Lecture: “Creaky Policies in Nanotime: How will Health Care Systems Cope with Global Age” with James Morone from Brown University. Other panel presentations focus on the role of law in the context of access to medicines and the control of chronic diseases, pharmaceutical policy, medical tourism, health and human rights, and health and vulnerability. Panel speakers include: Mary Anne Bobinski, William Bogart, Oscar Cabrera, Timothy Caulfield, I. Glenn Cohen, Rebecca Cook, Jocelyn Downie, Colleen Flood, Richard Gold, Lawrence Gostin, Aeyal Gross, Trudo Lemmens, Ruth Lopert, Constance Macintosh, Erin Nelson, Mariana Motta Prado, and Sheila Wildeman.

For Ontario lawyers, this program can be applied towards the 9 Substantive Hours of annual Continuing Professional Development (CPD) required by the Law Society of Upper Canada. The program may also be applicable towards up to 15 CPD hours for other jurisdictions within Canada and the U.S. Practitioners from these jurisdictions should confirm the applicability with their local law societies.

Trudo Lemmens is Associate Professor at the Faculties of Law and Medicine of the University of Toronto, and a member of the Joint Centre for Bioethics and the Centre for Ethics.

The post Announcement: Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law: the 2012 National Health Law Conference appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Medical research is increasingly relying on biobanks, large repositories of human biological material and related health information. These can be best conceived as elaborate research infrastructures, which allow researchers, often brought together in international research consortia, to study in more detail the long-term interaction between genes, environment and life-style. Biobanks are an increasingly crucial research tool, but they also raise complex legal and governance issues, particularly related to privacy. A key challenge is the difficulty of adequately informing people who donate tissue samples and give access to personal data about the type of research that will be undertaken--often in the distant future--and what specific privacy risks are associated with it.

There has been much debate about how traditional requirements of informed consent can be respected in the context of such open-ended information systems; whether informed consent should even be required; and how privacy protection can best be assured. Policy makers have taken various initiatives in this area. Genome Canada recently published, for example, a policy brief written by Timothy Caulfield and Bartha M. Knoppers to inform federal policy-makers of the various regulatory and policy options related to consent in the context of biobanks ().

Lisa Austin and I have participated in some of these policy initiatives and we also added our voices to the academic debate. In two recently published co-authored chapters, we suggest that the discussion has focused too much on the question whether fully informed consent is possible when people donate biological material and give access to health information. Some of our colleagues have argued that the answer to this question is the introduction of a new form of open-ended informed consent, while others have rejected the importance of informed consent altogether. We argue that informed consent remains an important concept, but that it should be tightly connected to the issue of governance of research.

In a first chapter (an earlier version of which is available on SSRN at: ), published in a book edited by Jane Kaye and Mark Stranger, (Farnhem: Ashgate, 2009), we first discuss how a variety of new developments make it increasingly hard to maintain that we can confidently assure the confidentiality of genetic information and detailed health information in the context of biomedical research. These developments include advances in genetic technology, particularly in the context of personalized genome scanning, the growth of health data sharing websites, the increasing regulatory requirements to publicize research data, and the development of large biobanks. We then analyze how the concept of fair information practices, embedded in many privacy statutes, already allows for some flexibility with respect to informed consent requirements in the context of medical research. These exceptions rely, however, heavily on the appropriate governance of health information privacy by research ethics boards. We point out that Canadian privacy statutes such as Ontario's Personal Health Information Privacy Act, inappropriately presume that there is currently a well-developed and coherent research ethics review system in place. The paper ends with an analysis of some key governance principles that ought to be respected to ensure appropriate privacy protection in the context of biobank research. These governance principles are widely accepted and integrated in various other governance systems. Yet, despite the explicit recognition of the importance of research ethics review in various statutory regimes and government policies, the REB governance system surrounding research fails in many Canadian provinces to respect these basic principles.

In the second chapter (available on SSRN: ), which appeared in Pascal Borry and Kris Dierickx, eds., (Antwerpen: Intersentia, 2009), we defend the position that even in the context of biobanks, it is possible to think of the role of informed consent in a highly principled manner, consistent with how consent is dealt with in tort law. Building on Neil C. Manson & Onora O'Neill's recent work on informed consent as a "waiver" we argue that the informed consent requirement can be met but only if there is a governance structure ensuring consistent information practices and policies across multiple research projects. We also suggest that specific research uses of research samples and associated data in the biobank do not necessarily require informed consent but do require a governance structure that can regulate privacy risks such as the risk of re-identification. We thus distinguish consent at the outset of the collection and no-consent for future use, with both requiring a governance structure in order to protect the important interests at stake. We conclude by suggesting that the legal and ethical debates regarding biobanking must shift from an obsession with consent and focus more closely on the elements of good governance in order to move away from compromises and back to the principled protection of research subjects.

The chapters are among the key results of a research project that was funded by the and organized through the Faculty of Law's . The research project also resulted in 2009 in an interdisciplinary workshop organized by Professors Lemmens and Austin, doctoral candidate Ubaka Ogbogu, and Senior Privacy Analyst Ruth Vale ( (PDF)). The research group further included as researchers Stuart Hargreaves and Nisha Menon, graduate students of the Faculty of Law. Other results of the research project are still being finalized.

This article orginally appeared on the .

The post Biobank Governance, Privacy, and Informed Consent appeared first on IPOsgoode.