• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
The First Amendment Right to Speak About the Human Genome.关于人类基因组言论的第一修正案权利。
Univ Pa J Const Law. 2014 Feb 1;16(3):549-636.
2
Medicare, Medicaid and CLIA programs; regulations implementing the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA)--HCFA. Final rule with comment period.医疗保险、医疗补助和临床实验室改进修正案(CLIA)计划;实施1988年《临床实验室改进修正案》(CLIA)的法规——医疗保健财务管理局。附意见征求期的最终规则。
Fed Regist. 1992 Feb 28;57(40):7002-186.
3
Ability of community pharmacists to independently perform CLIA-waived testing - A multistate legal review.社区药剂师独立开展临床实验室改进修正案(CLIA)豁免检测的能力——一项多州法律审查
Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm. 2021 May 8;2:100024. doi: 10.1016/j.rcsop.2021.100024. eCollection 2021 Jun.
4
Right to Commercial Speech in India: Construing Constitutional Provisions Harmoniously in Favor of Public Health.印度的商业言论权:为了公共健康,从宪法规定的角度进行协调解释。
J Law Med Ethics. 2022;50(2):284-290. doi: 10.1017/jme.2022.53.
5
Coping with CLIA, Part 9. CLIA's quality assurance: a study in total devotion.应对《临床实验室改进修正案》,第9部分。《临床实验室改进修正案》的质量保证:全身心投入的研究。
MLO Med Lab Obs. 1993 May;25(5):45-8.
6
First Amendment Limits on Compulsory Speech.第一修正案对强制言论的限制。
Food Drug Law J. 2016;71(3):519-43.
7
Health Care Efficiencies: Consolidation and Alternative Models vs. Health Care and Antitrust Regulation - Irreconcilable Differences?医疗保健效率:合并与替代模式与医疗保健及反垄断监管——不可调和的差异?
Am J Law Med. 2017 Nov;43(4):426-467. doi: 10.1177/0098858817753407.
8
Final CLIA regulations. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments.临床实验室改进修正案最终法规。
Health Devices. 1992 Nov;21(11):420-5.
9
Medicare, Medicaid and CLIA programs; regulations implementing the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act Program fee collection--HCFA. Final rule with comment period.医疗保险、医疗补助和临床实验室改进修正案(CLIA)计划;实施1988年《临床实验室改进修正案》(CLIA)和临床实验室改进法案计划费用收取的法规——医疗保健财务管理局。有意见征求期的最终规则。
Fed Regist. 1993 Jan 19;58(11):5215-37.
10
Medicare, Medicaid, and CLIA programs; clinical laboratory requirements--extension of certain effective dates for clinical laboratory requirements under CLIA--CDC, HCFA. Final rule with comment period.医疗保险、医疗补助和临床实验室改进修正案(CLIA)计划;临床实验室要求——延长CLIA规定的临床实验室要求的某些生效日期——疾病控制与预防中心、医疗保健财务管理局。有意见征求期的最终规则。
Fed Regist. 1997 May 12;62(91):25855-8.

引用本文的文献

1
The Streetlight Effect: Regulating Genomics Where the Light Is.《街灯效应:在有光照的地方规范基因组学》。
J Law Med Ethics. 2020 Mar;48(1):105-118. doi: 10.1177/1073110520916998.
2
Key Expert Stakeholder Perceptions of the Law of Genomics: Identified Problems and Potential Solutions.关键专家利益攸关方对基因组学法律的看法:已识别的问题和潜在解决方案。
J Law Med Ethics. 2020 Mar;48(1):87-104. doi: 10.1177/1073110520916997.
3
"Bridge to the Literature"? Third-Party Genetic Interpretation Tools and the Views of Tool Developers.“通往文献的桥梁”?第三方基因解读工具及工具开发者的观点。
J Genet Couns. 2018 Aug;27(4):770-781. doi: 10.1007/s10897-018-0217-9. Epub 2018 Feb 7.
4
Clinical verification of genetic results returned to research participants: findings from a Colon Cancer Family Registry.返回给研究参与者的基因检测结果的临床验证:来自结肠癌家族登记处的发现
Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2017 Nov;5(6):700-708. doi: 10.1002/mgg3.328. Epub 2017 Aug 23.
5
Power to the People: Data Citizens in the Age of Precision Medicine.权力属于人民:精准医学时代的数据公民。
Vanderbilt J Entertain Technol Law. 2017 Winter;19(2):243-265.
6
Barbarians at the Gate: Consumer-Driven Health Data Commons and the Transformation of Citizen Science.《门口的野蛮人:消费者驱动的健康数据共享库与公民科学的变革》
Am J Law Med. 2016 Nov;42(4):651-685. doi: 10.1177/0098858817700245.
7
Engaging Hmong adults in genomic and pharmacogenomic research: Toward reducing health disparities in genomic knowledge using a community-based participatory research approach.让苗族成年人参与基因组和药物基因组学研究:采用基于社区的参与性研究方法,以减少基因组知识方面的健康差距。
J Community Genet. 2017 Apr;8(2):117-125. doi: 10.1007/s12687-017-0292-x. Epub 2017 Jan 10.
8
Automatic Placement of Genomic Research Results in Medical Records: Do Researchers Have a Duty? Should Participants Have a Choice?基因组研究结果在医疗记录中的自动录入:研究人员有责任吗?参与者应有选择权吗?
J Law Med Ethics. 2015 Winter;43(4):827-42. doi: 10.1111/jlme.12323.
9
The Limits of FDA's Authority to Regulate Clinical Research Involving High-Throughput DNA Sequencing.美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)监管涉及高通量DNA测序的临床研究的权力限制
Food Drug Law J. 2015;70(2):259-87, ii.
10
Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between.研究参与者的基因组结果返还:底线、上限和中间选择。
Am J Hum Genet. 2014 Jun 5;94(6):818-26. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.04.009. Epub 2014 May 8.

本文引用的文献

1
Genetic gatekeepers: regulating direct-to-consumer genomic services in an era of participatory medicine.基因守门人:在参与式医学时代规范直接面向消费者的基因组服务
Food Drug Law J. 2012;67(4):475-524, iii.
2
The Role of Law in the Debate over Return of Research Results and Incidental Findings: The Challenge of Developing Law for Translational Science.法律在研究结果与偶发发现返还争议中的作用:为转化科学制定法律面临的挑战。
Minn J Law Sci Technol. 2012;13(2). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2117289.
3
The Informed Cohort Oversight Board: From Values to Architecture.知情队列监督委员会:从价值观到架构
Minn J Law Sci Technol. 2012 Spring;13(2):669-690.
4
Minimizing liability risks under the ACMG recommendations for reporting incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing.最小化 ACMG 建议中报告临床外显子组和基因组测序偶然发现的责任风险。
Genet Med. 2013 Dec;15(12):915-20. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.135. Epub 2013 Sep 12.
5
Return of results: not that complicated?结果反馈:没那么复杂?
Genet Med. 2012 Apr;14(4):358-60. doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.8.
6
Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets.管理涉及生物库和存档数据集的基因组研究中的偶发发现和研究结果。
Genet Med. 2012 Apr;14(4):361-84. doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.23.
7
The legal risks of returning results of genomics research.基因组学研究结果回传的法律风险。
Genet Med. 2012 Apr;14(4):473-7. doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.10. Epub 2012 Feb 9.
8
Can speech by FDA-regulated firms ever be noncommercial?受美国食品药品监督管理局监管的公司发表的言论能是非商业性的吗?
Am J Law Med. 2011;37(2-3):388-421. doi: 10.1177/009885881103700208.
9
Off-label prescription advertising, the FDA and the First Amendment: a study in the values of commercial speech protection.非标签处方广告、美国食品药品监督管理局与第一修正案:商业言论保护价值研究
Am J Law Med. 2011;37(2-3):315-57. doi: 10.1177/009885881103700206.
10
The commercial speech doctrine in health regulation: the clash between the public interest in a robust First Amendment and the public interest in effective protection from harm.健康监管中的商业言论原则:第一修正案所保障的强大公众利益与有效预防伤害的公众利益之间的冲突。
Am J Law Med. 2011;37(2-3):299-314. doi: 10.1177/009885881103700205.

关于人类基因组言论的第一修正案权利。

The First Amendment Right to Speak About the Human Genome.

作者信息

Evans Barbara J

机构信息

Center for Biotechnology & Law, University of Houston Law Center.

出版信息

Univ Pa J Const Law. 2014 Feb 1;16(3):549-636.

PMID:25473380
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4249692/
Abstract

This article explores whether laws that restrict the communication of genetic test results may, under certain circumstances, violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The focus is whether investigators have a right to return results from non-CLIA-certified laboratories in situations where a research participant requests the results and the investigator is willing to share them but is concerned that doing so may violate regulations under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 ("CLIA"). This article takes no position on whether investigators can be compelled to return results when they do not wish to do so. It examines only whether investigators may, not whether they must, return results to a willing research participant. The article: (1) surveys state and federal laws that block communication of genetic test results to research participants; (2) examines the historical use of speech restrictions as a tool for protecting human research subjects; (3) traces how First Amendment doctrine has evolved since the 1970s when foundations of modern research bioethics were laid; (4) inquires whether recent bioethical and policy debate has accorded due weight to the First Amendment. The article applies two common methods of legal analysis, textual and constitutional analysis. It concludes that the CLIA regulations, when properly construed, do not treat the return of results as an event that triggers CLIA's certification requirements. Moreover, there is a potential First Amendment problem in construing CLIA's research exception in a way that bans the return of results from non-CLIA-certified laboratories.

摘要

本文探讨了限制基因检测结果交流的法律在某些情况下是否可能违反美国宪法第一修正案。重点在于,在研究参与者要求获取结果且研究者愿意分享,但担心这样做可能违反1988年《临床实验室改进修正案》(“CLIA”)相关规定的情况下,研究者是否有权返还来自非CLIA认证实验室的检测结果。本文对于研究者在不愿返还结果时是否会被强制要求返还不持立场。它仅考察研究者是否可以(而非是否必须)将结果返还给愿意接收的研究参与者。本文:(1)调查了禁止向研究参与者传达基因检测结果的州法和联邦法;(2)审视了将言论限制作为保护人体研究对象工具的历史用法;(3)追溯了自20世纪70年代现代研究生物伦理学基础奠定以来第一修正案原则的演变;(4)探究近期生物伦理学和政策辩论是否对第一修正案给予了应有的重视。本文运用了两种常见的法律分析方法,即文本分析和宪法分析。结论是,CLIA法规若得到恰当解释,并不将结果返还视为触发CLIA认证要求的事件。此外,以禁止返还非CLIA认证实验室结果的方式来解释CLIA的研究例外规定,可能存在第一修正案方面的问题。