Two-faced Janus? Consent to participate in research and consent to data processing in the EHDS era: a comparative analysis of requirements and standards in eight European countries

dc.contributor.authorMarelli, Luca
dc.contributor.authorColussi, Ilaria
dc.contributor.authorSchlünder, Irene
dc.contributor.authorBahr, Anne
dc.contributor.authorHuys, Isabelle
dc.contributor.authorKrekora-Zając, Dorota
dc.contributor.authorKuráň, Jan
dc.contributor.authorLalova-Spinks, Teodora
dc.contributor.authorMascalzoni, Deborah
dc.contributor.authorMatei, Mihaela
dc.contributor.authorNicolás, Pilar
dc.contributor.authorSoutherington, Tom
dc.contributor.organizationfi=oikeustiede|en=Laws|
dc.contributor.organization-code1.2.246.10.2458963.20.53046050752
dc.converis.publication-id526458355
dc.converis.urlhttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/Publication/526458355
dc.date.accessioned2026-06-10T20:11:37Z
dc.description.abstract<p>This study examines the complex and often ambiguous conceptualization of consent in European health research, focusing on the relationship between informed consent to participate in research and consent as a legal basis for personal data processing. Differences between these two forms of consent may lead to inconsistent procedures and requirements, thereby generating legal and practical challenges for researchers, ethics committees, data protection authorities, and other oversight bodies. Drawing on two use cases involving observational retrospective studies, the paper compares consent requirements and oversight practices in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain, highlighting persistent fragmentation and uneven institutional coordination across national research governance systems. The paper also distinguishes between ‘monist’ conceptions of consent, which view research and data protection consent as expressions of a single normative concept, and ‘dualist’ conceptions, which treat them as distinct forms of authorization grounded in different ethical and legal rationales. The paper concludes by reflecting on the implications of the upcoming European Health Data Space Regulation, arguing that its approach to secondary data use may further accentuate existing tensions and highlighting the need for greater conceptual clarity and institutional coordination in European health research governance.</p>
dc.identifier.eissn2053-9711
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/11111/61687
dc.identifier.urlhttps://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/13/1/lsag016/8684915
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi-fe2026060966120
dc.language.isoen
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorSoutherington, Tom
dc.okm.discipline513 Lawen_GB
dc.okm.discipline513 Oikeustiedefi_FI
dc.okm.internationalcopublicationinternational co-publication
dc.okm.internationalityInternational publication
dc.okm.typeA1 ScientificArticle
dc.publisherOxford University Press
dc.publisher.countryUnited Kingdomen_GB
dc.publisher.countryBritanniafi_FI
dc.publisher.country-codeGB
dc.relation.articlenumberlsag016
dc.relation.doi10.1093/jlb/lsag016
dc.relation.ispartofjournalJournal of Law and the Biosciences
dc.relation.issue1
dc.relation.volume13
dc.titleTwo-faced Janus? Consent to participate in research and consent to data processing in the EHDS era: a comparative analysis of requirements and standards in eight European countries
dc.year.issued2026

Tiedostot

Näytetään 1 - 1 / 1
Ladataan...
Name:
SoutheringtonEtAl2026TwoFacedJanus.pdf
Size:
31.05 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format