Recognizing when “protecting patient privacy” is mere excuse for not sharing data

Is “protecting patient privacy” a mere excuse for not sharing data?
— Yes.

http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f1881/rr/762606

Quick Thoughts

In bringing up “protecting patient privacy”  in refusing to release the PACE trial data published in PLOS One, King’s College, London is doing the Shuck ‘N’ Jive.

garfunkel shuck To hear Art Garfunkel’s Mr Shuck ‘N’ Jive click here

King's college LondonAs covered in a recent blog post, King’s College London issued a press release reiterating their refusal to release the PACE PLOS One data. A close read of the press release reveals the PACE investigators have suspended attacking the character and motives of those who request data that they promised as a condition for publishing  in PLOS One. They instead now focus on conditions which they argue must be met in terms of “protecting patient privacy” before they release the data.

“We stand by our decisions to decline two recent applications for trial data as we believe that they did not meet these requirements.”

Under some specific circumstances, the need…

View original post 2,099 more words

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: