Staking the Public Trust on Newborn Dried Blood Spot Retention: How the Beleno and Bearder Decisions May Impact Canadian Newborn Metabolic Screening Processes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Public trust is fickle. Hard to obtain, even harder to maintain, it can be lost in an instant. From the 1960s onward, the medical community in North America has advocated and implemented a series of tests for newborns to help target, treat and possibly eliminate certain genetic diseases. Newborn metabolic screening (NMS) takes blood drops from a heel poke of an infant, collected on filter paper, which is then sealed when dry. Samples are sent to centralized laboratories where they undergo a battery of tests including mass spectrometry and DNA microarray technology. Such advanced testing is said to help identify dozens of potentially dangerous genetic abnormalities that could affect the future health of a child. (1) What has placed NMS practices in many countries at odds with public perception, however, is what health authorities do with the dried blood spots (DBS) after the screening is completed. Samples are routinely stored for at least one year after testing to ensure there is a specimen available for re-testing if necessary and for on-going quality assurance/quality control of the tests being performed (2). Members of the public and privacy advocates have expressed concern about the longer term non-consensual retention of DBS for secondary uses such as (3) The collection and storage of DBS gives rise to tissue repositories or biobanks. Such collections raise numerous ethical questions, including issues related to access, informed consent and privacy. Canadian jurisdictions have yet to legislate on the practice of DBS retention and secondary use of stored DBS. The first legal challenge to DBS retention in Canada was initiated in British Columbia in May 2010 (4) and this case will provide an opportunity to address unsettled issues. This paper provides an overview of the NMS programs and DBS storage practices in Canada. This summary provides a foundation for a discussion of the legal and ethical dilemmas raised by the creation of DBS biobanks. Recent American cases of Beleno v. Texas Department of State Health Services (5) and Bearder v. Minnesota (6) groundbreaking precedents concerning the collection of DBS, are incorporated into a larger discussion related to the probable outcome of similar legal arguments in Canadian jurisprudence. Up until a decade ago, little was known of the retention and storage practices for DBS. With the exponential growth of genetic research worldwide, however, the demand for tissue samples, including DBS, has risen. (7) Biobanks and the millions of infant DNA samples contained within them are said to represent an enormous potential resource for scientific study. In a 2002 workshop, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention commented on the importance of access to DBS: leftover DBS specimens are a unique, valuable population-based source for important public health surveillance and potential epidemiologic research. (8) However, privacy advocates and concerned citizens have seized upon the fact that there is a noted absence of regulatory policy or legal instrument in Canada that controls the retention and dissemination of stored DBS. (9) Such concerns have been distilled into constitutional and legal challenges, discussed in more detail below. (10) Newborn Screening Programs In Canada, where NMS is an integral part of the public health program, there is currently no legislation that directly regulates the collection, retention and secondary use of DBS. NMS programs in North America have been implemented by governments as public health initiatives and have progressed over 50 years to become a part of routine, preventive medicine. As such, NMS programs are not required to obtain explicit consent from the parents of newborns for the collection and retention of DBS. (11) The justification for NMS programs is evidenced through the early detection of life threatening genetic conditions in newborns which, in turn, provides a direct benefit to newborns while posing minimal risk of harm. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,041 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».