Confidentiality and serious harm in genetics- preserving the confidentiality of one patient and preventing harm to relatives

European Journal of Human Genetics

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 93-97

  Lucassen, Anneke ^a   Parker, Michael ^b  

^a PRINCESS ANNE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Autonomy; Clinical genetics; Confidentiality; Consent; Disclosure; Familial; Predictive testing

Indexed keywords

BRCA1 PROTEIN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL GENETICS; CONFIDENTIALITY; DISEASE SEVERITY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FAMILY; FEMALE; GENE MUTATION; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE AVAILABILITY; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; HUNTINGTON CHOREA; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; OVARY CANCER; PATIENT COUNSELING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; RISK ASSESSMENT;

GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION;

CONFIDENTIALITY; ETHICS; FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; GUIDELINES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED;

EID: 1342324941     PISSN: 10184813     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201118     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Human Genetics Commission. Inside Information. Balancing interests in the use of personal genetic data; 1-5-2002.
2. Human Genetics: Choice and Responsibility. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1998.
3. Genetic Interest Group. Confidentiality guidelines, 1998; www.gig.org.uk (accessed 9/2002).
4. Knoppers B, Strom C, Wright-Clayton E et al. Professional disclosure of familial genetic information. Am J Hum Genet 1998; 62A: 474-483.
5. General Medical Council: Confidentiality: protecting providing information. Duties of a Doctor 2000.
6. W v Egdell, 1 All ER 855, 1990.
7. Tarasoff v Regents of University of CA, 551 P2d 334 (CA, 1976).
8. Pate v Threlkel, 661 So2d. 278 (FL, 1995) and Safer v Pack, 677 A. 2d 1188, 683 A 2d 1163 (NJ, 1996).
9. House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology: Human Genetics: The Science and its Consequences. Report No. 3 London: HMSO, 1995.
10. Julian-Reynier C, Eisinger F, Chabal F et al Disclosure to the family of breast/ovarian cancer genetic test results: patient's willingness associated factors. Am J Med Genet 94: 13.
11. Sommerville A, English V: Genetic privacy: orthodoxy or oxymoron? J Med Ethics 1999; 25: 144-150.
12. Knoppers BM, Hirtle M, Lormeau S, Laberge CM, Laflamme M: Control of DNA samples. Inform Genom 50: 385-401.
13. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Genetic Screening, Ethical Issues, 1993; www.nuffieldbioethics.org/pubs.
14. Claes E, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A, Decruyenaere M, Denayer L, Legius E: Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients. Am J Med Genet 2003; 116: 11-19.
15. Weijer C: Benefit-sharing and other protections for communities in genetic research. Clin Genet 2000; 58: 367-368.
16. Leung WC, Mariman EC, van der Wouden JC, van Amergongen H, Weijer C: Results of genetic testing: when confidentiality conflicts with a duty to warn relatives. Br Med J 2000; 321: 1464-1466.
17. Doukas DJ: Autonomy beneficence in the family: describing the family covenant. J Clin Ethics 1991; 2: 145-148.
18. Doukas DJ, Berg JW: The family covenant genetic testing. Am J Bioethics 2001; 1: 2-10.
19. Knoppers BM: Genetic information and the family: are we our brother's keeper? Trends Biotechnol 2002; 20: 85-86.
20. Parker M, Lucassen A: Concern for families and individuals in clinical genetics. J Med Ethics 2003; 29: 70-73.
21. Lucassen AM, Houlston RS: Clinical geneticists' attitudes and practice towards testing for breast cancer susceptibility genes. J Med Genet 2000; 37: 157-160.
22. Parker M, Lucassen A: Lancet 2002; 360: 1685-1688.
23. http://www.clingensoc.org/Ethics/genethics_club.htm (accessed 7/03).