TY - JOUR
T1 - Biometrics and public health surveillance in criminalised and key populations
T2 - policy, ethics, and human rights considerations
AU - Kavanagh, Matthew M.
AU - Baral, Stefan D.
AU - Milanga, Maureen
AU - Sugarman, Jeremy
N1 - Funding Information:
MMK, SDB, and MM declare no competing interests. JS reports grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; and, outside the submitted work, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck KGaA Bioethics Advisory Panel and Stem Cell Research Oversight Committee, and personal fees and non-financial support from IQVIA (formerly Quintiles) Ethics Advisory Panel.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2019/1
Y1 - 2019/1
N2 - Widespread public health surveillance efforts focused on key populations (men who have sex with men, sex workers, people who inject drugs, and others) gather data on population sizes, HIV prevalence, and other information for planning and resource allocation. Biometric identification might improve this data gathering. However, in the context of extensive criminalisation of these populations, the use of biometrics such as fingerprints raises concerns that are insufficiently addressed in current policies. These concerns include infringing privacy, exposing participants to risks of legal action or violence, biasing surveillance results, and undermining trust in the health system. We set out key ethics and human rights considerations regarding the use of biometrics in HIV surveillance among these populations, and outline a typology of jurisdictions wherein such methods might be considered, based on data about legal, political, and social environments. In this Review, we suggest that the biometrics approach is not currently likely to be appropriate in many jurisdictions.
AB - Widespread public health surveillance efforts focused on key populations (men who have sex with men, sex workers, people who inject drugs, and others) gather data on population sizes, HIV prevalence, and other information for planning and resource allocation. Biometric identification might improve this data gathering. However, in the context of extensive criminalisation of these populations, the use of biometrics such as fingerprints raises concerns that are insufficiently addressed in current policies. These concerns include infringing privacy, exposing participants to risks of legal action or violence, biasing surveillance results, and undermining trust in the health system. We set out key ethics and human rights considerations regarding the use of biometrics in HIV surveillance among these populations, and outline a typology of jurisdictions wherein such methods might be considered, based on data about legal, political, and social environments. In this Review, we suggest that the biometrics approach is not currently likely to be appropriate in many jurisdictions.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060063397&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85060063397&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S2352-3018(18)30243-1
DO - 10.1016/S2352-3018(18)30243-1
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85060063397
SN - 2352-3018
VL - 6
SP - e51-e59
JO - The Lancet HIV
JF - The Lancet HIV
IS - 1
ER -