IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v70y2010i9p1295-1300.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are cancer registries unconstitutional?

Author

Listed:
  • McLaughlin, Robert H.
  • Clarke, Christina A.
  • Crawley, LaVera M.
  • Glaser, Sally L.

Abstract

Population-based cancer registration, mandated throughout the United States, is central to quantifying the breadth and impact of cancer. It facilitates research to learn what causes cancer to develop and, in many cases, lead to death. However, as concerns about privacy increase, cancer registration has come under question. Recently, its constitutionality was challenged on the basis of 1) the vagueness of statutory aims to pursue public health versus the individual privacy interests of cancer patients, and 2) the alleged indignity of one's individual medical information being transmitted to government authorities. Examining cancer registry statutes in states covered by the US National Cancer Institute's SEER Program and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Program of Cancer Registries, we found that cancer registration laws do state specific public health benefits, and offer reasonable limits and safeguards on the government's possession of private medical information. Thus, we argue that cancer registration would survive constitutional review, is compatible with the civil liberties protected by privacy rights in the U.S., satisfies the conditions that justify public health expenditures, and serves human rights to enjoy the highest attainable standards of health, the advances of science, and the benefits of government efforts to prevent and control disease.

Suggested Citation

  • McLaughlin, Robert H. & Clarke, Christina A. & Crawley, LaVera M. & Glaser, Sally L., 2010. "Are cancer registries unconstitutional?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1295-1300, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:9:p:1295-1300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(10)00114-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trumbo, C.W., 2000. "Public requests for cancer cluster investigations: A survey of state health departments," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 90(8), pages 1300-1302.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas & John C. Besley, 2008. "Individual‐ and Community‐Level Effects on Risk Perception in Cancer Cluster Investigations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 161-178, February.
    2. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "The Function of Credibility in Information Processing for Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 343-353, April.
    3. Andrea Gurmankin Levy & Neil Weinstein & Erin Kidney & Suzanne Scheld & Peter Guarnaccia, 2008. "Lay and Expert Interpretations of Cancer Cluster Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1531-1538, December.
    4. Michael Goodman & Judy S. LaKind & Jerald A. Fagliano & Timothy L. Lash & Joseph L. Wiemels & Deborah M. Winn & Chirag Patel & Juliet Van Eenwyk & Betsy A. Kohler & Enrique F. Schisterman & Paul Alber, 2014. "Cancer Cluster Investigations: Review of the Past and Proposals for the Future," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:9:p:1295-1300. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.