Saying privacy, meaning confidentiality.
Saying privacy, meaning confidentiality.
复制标题
说隐私，就是保密的意思。
DOI：
10.1080/15265161.2011.608243
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Gligorov,Nada
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Schwab,AbrahamP;Frank,Lily;Gligorov,Nada
Schonfeld和他的同事(2011)谈到了临床实践和研究之间日益扩大的差距，因为他们解决了研究预筛选和审查过程中的隐私(和保密)问题。尽管他们就医学和研究界内的信息共享提出了一些建议，但他们对这些建议的论点还不够成熟，在概念上也是混乱的。因此，他们的建议缺乏足够的支持，正如我们在这里所说的那样，他们的建议是错误的。Schonfeld和他的同事们对隐私的讨论因未能区分描述性隐私和隐私的价值而变得混乱。对隐私的描述性描述应提供条件，说明什么构成隐私，什么表明隐私丧失。例如，当更多的人获得访问一条信息的权限时，隐私可能会丢失，或者当个人不再能够控制信息时，隐私可能会丢失。对隐私价值的解释应该解释为什么隐私权利或利益应该受到尊重或保护(Gavison 1980)。这两个隐私方面的结合可以在下面的摘录中看到：“我们授予隐私既是为了保护患者免受与知道其个人健康信息的其他人相关的伤害(慈善)，也是因为个人有权决定其个人和个人数据的使用(尊重个人)”(31)。看一下这段摘录的后半部分，Schonfeld和他的同事可能意味着(1)个人决定个人数据使用的能力是定义为私人的东西，或者(2)这种控制可能是为什么隐私很有价值。如果(1)，如果个人无法确定个人数据的使用，则发生隐私损失，这种损失是有问题的，因为它可能会导致个人受到伤害。如果(2)，这种丢失是有问题的，因为它可能会导致个人受到伤害，也因为个人无法控制个人数据的使用。
Schonfeld and colleagues (2011) touch on the evernarrowing gap between clinical practice and research as they address issues of privacy (and confidentiality) in the prescreening and review process for research. Although they put forth a number of recommendations about the sharing of information within the medical and research community, their arguments for these recommendations are underdeveloped and conceptually confused. As a result, their recommendations lack adequate support, and, as we argue here, their recommendations are mistaken. Schonfeld and colleagues’ discussion of privacy is obfuscated by a failure to distinguish between descriptive privacy and the value of privacy. A descriptive account of privacy ought to provide the conditions for what constitutes privacy and what indicates a loss of privacy. For example, privacy could be lost as more people gain access to a piece of information or it could be lost when the individual is no longer able to control the information. An account of the value of privacy ought to explain why privacy rights or interests should be respected or protected (Gavison 1980).The conflation of these two aspects of privacy can be seen in the following excerpt:“We grant privacy both to protect patients from the harms associated with others knowing their personal health information (beneficence) and because individuals have a right to determine the use of their person and personal data (respect for persons)”(31). Looking at the second half of this excerpt, Schonfeld and colleagues could mean (1) that an individual’s ability to determine the use of personal data is what defines something as private, or (2) it could be that this control is why privacy is valuable. If (1), the loss of privacy occurs if an individual cannot determine the use of personal data, and this loss is problematic because it may lead the individual to harm. If (2), this loss is problematic both because it may lead the individual to harm and because the individual cannot control the use of personal data.