The origins of the Irish hospitals' sweepstake

This article examines the two main reasons for the setting up of the Irish sweepstakes in 1930; the financial crisis facing voluntary hospitals and the tradition of using sweepstake gambling to raise funds for charitable purposes. Such gambling, although technically illegal, was prevalent and widely tolerated during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The change of government that accompanied Irish independence in 1921 led to much confusion surrounding the law on gambling and large-scale sweepstakes proliferated during the early 1920s, many of them selling tickets illegally in Britain. At the same time the Irish voluntary hospitals faced a financial crisis that threatened their future, brought about by the adverse impact of war-time inflation on the value of their endowments, the emigration of supporters of the Protestant voluntary hospitals after independence, the political upheaval of the revolutionary period, the decline in fees from medical students and the increasing cost of and demand for hospital treatment. This article provides a detailed account of the enactment of the sweepstake legislation and of the first sweepstake on the 1930 Manchester November Handicap.

Accessing Social Work Case Files for Research Purposes: Some Issues and Problems

The use of social work case files as an important research resource is being threatened by the increasing regulation of both the research process and access to personal identifiable information. While these developments can be seen as a reaction to specific incidents of inappropriate research and the misuse of personal information, it is argued that the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and in seeking to protect the rights of vulnerable individuals, the lives of these same individuals may go unstudied with the consequence that they receive less appropriate services. Drawing upon the current research of the authors, this article explores the difficulties encountered in gaining access to social work case files for research purposes without the explicit consent of service users and highlights the uncertainty surrounding this issue. Suggestions are made for improvements in the situation.

Access to medical records for research purposes:Varying perceptions across research ethics boards

Introduction: Variation across research ethics boards (REBs) in conditions placed on access to medical records for research purposes raises concerns around negative impacts on research quality and on human subject protection, including privacy. Aim: To study variation in REB consent requirements for retrospective chart review and who may have access to the medical record for data abstraction. Methods: Thirty 90-min face-to-face interviews were conducted with REB chairs and administrators affiliated with faculties of medicine in Canadian universities, using structured questions around a case study with open-ended responses. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded manually. Results: Fourteen sites (47%) required individual patient consent for the study to proceed as proposed. Three (10%) indicated that their response would depend on how potentially identifying variables would be managed. Eleven sites (38%) did not require consent. Two (7%) suggested a notification and opt-out process. Most stated that consent would be required if identifiable information was being abstracted from the record. Among those not requiring consent, there was substantial variation in recognising that the abstracted information could potentially indirectly re-identify individuals. Concern over access to medical records by an outside individual was also associated with requirement for consent. Eighteen sites (60%) required full committee review. Sixteen (53%) allowed an external research assistant to abstract information from the health record. Conclusions: Large variation was found across sites in the requirement for consent for research involving access to medical records. REBs need training in best practices for protecting privacy and confidentiality in health research. A forum for REB chairs to confidentially share concerns and decisions about specific studies could also reduce variation in decisions.

The EU Clinical Trials Regulation: Key Priorities, Purposes and Aims and the Implications for Public Health

The replacement of the European Union (EU) Clinical Trials Directive by the new Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR), which entered into force on 16 June 2014 but will not apply before 28 May 2016, provides an opportunity to review the legal and political context within which this important aspect of research law and policy sits and to reflect on the implications for public health. My aim in this article is to relate the context to the key purposes and aims of EU law and policy on clinical trials in order to explain and clarify its orientation. On that basis, I argue that the CTR and the changes it introduces to the law on clinical trials are part of the EU's continued focus on market optimisation. It is this focus that orients and directs the wider pharmaceutical development pipeline, but that undermines the achievement of key public health objectives.