A tiered-layered-staged model for informed consent in personal genome testing

European Journal of Human Genetics

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 596-601

  Bunnik, Eline M ^a   Janssens, A Cecile J W ^a   Schermer, Maartje H N ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

complex diseases; ethical issues; informed consent; personal genome testing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSUMER; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; GENOME ANALYSIS; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ETHICS; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS; HUMAN GENOME; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; THEORETICAL MODEL;

GENETIC TESTING; GENOME, HUMAN; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINE; INFORMED CONSENT; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 84884255195     PISSN: 10184813     EISSN: 14765438     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.237     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Council of Europe: Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, concerning Genetic Testing for Health Purposes. Strasbourg, Council of Europe 2008.
2. European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG): Statement of the ESHG on direct-Toconsumer genetic testing for health-related purposes. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010; 18: 1271-1273.
3. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York/.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
4. Manson NC, O'Neill O. Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
5. Pranati: Informed consent: are we doing enough?. Perspect Clin Res. 2010; 1: 124-127.
6. Council of Europe: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine. Oviedo, Council of Europe, 1997.
7. Kaäriäinen H, Hietala M, Kristoffersson U, et al. Recommendations for Genetic Counselling related to Genetic Testing. European Commission, EuroGentest 2008.
8. McBride CM, Bowen D, Brody LC, et al. Future health applications of genomics: priorities for communication, behavioral, and social sciences research. Am J Prev Med. 2010; 38: 556-565.
9. McGuire AL, Diaz CM, Wang T, Hilsenbeck SG. Social networkers' attitudes toward direct-To-consumer personal genome testing. Am J Bioeth. 2009; 9: 3-10.
10. Bloss CS, Schork NJ, Topol EJ. Effect of direct-To-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364: 524-534.
11. Howard HC, Borry P. Personal genome testing: do you know what you are buying?. Am J Bioeth. 2009; 9: 11-13.
12. Berg C, Fryer-Edwards K. The ethical challenges of direct-To-consumer genetic testing. J Bus Ethics. 2007; 77: 17-31.
13. Gurwitz D, Bregman-Eschet Y. Personal genomics services: whose genomes?. Eur J Hum Genet. 2009; 17: 883-889.
14. Nuffield Council on Bioethics: Medical Profiling and Online Medicine: The Ethics of ''Personalised Healthcare'' in a Consumer Age. London, Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2010.
15. Human Genetics Commission (HGC): A common framework of principles for direct-Toconsumer genetic testing services. London, HGC, 2010.
16. Lachance CR, Erby LAH, Ford BM, Allen VC, Kaphingst KA. Informational content, literacy demands, and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers. Genet Med. 2010; 12: 304-312.
17. Singleton A, Erby LH, Foisie KV, Kaphingst KA. Informed choice in direct-To-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) websites: a content analysis of benefits, risks, and limitations. J Genet Couns. 2011; 21: 433-439.
18. Bunnik EM, Janssens ACJW, Schermer M. Informed consent in direct-To-consumer personal genome testing: the outline of a model between specific and generic consent. In press
19. Elias S, Annas GJ. Generic consent for genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 1994; 330: 1611-1613.
20. O'Neill O. Some limits of informed consent. J Med Ethics. 2003; 29: 4-7.
21. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics (fifth edition). New York, NY. Oxford University Press, 1994.
22. Eiseman E, Bloom G, Brower J, Clancy N, Olmsted SS. Case Studies of Existing Human Tissue Repositories: ''Best Practices'' for a Biospecimen Resource fsor the Genomic and Proteomic Era. Santa Monica, CA. RAND Corporation, 2003.
23. Entwistle VA, Carter SM, Trevena L, et al. Communicating about screening. BMJ. 2008; 337: 789-791.
24. National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC): Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance. Springfield, VA, Department of Commerce 1999.
25. Ross LF. Mandatory versus voluntary consent for newborn screening?. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2010; 20: 299-328.
26. Bredenoord AL, Onland-Moret NC, Van Delden JJM: Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: in favor of a qualified disclosure policy. Hum Mutat. 2011; 32: 861-867.
27. Berg JS, Khoury MJ, Evans JP. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med. 2011; 13: 499-504.
28. Rizk C. James Evans' plan to make genetic testing data manageable for the clinic. Genomeweb 2011.
29. Bunnik EM, Schermer MHN, Janssens ACJW: The role of disease characteristics in the ethical debate on personal genome testing. BMC Med Genomics. 2012; 5: 4.
30. US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): Research-Based Web Design &Usability Guidelines. Washington, DC, HHS 2006.
31. Kaphingst KA, McBride CM, Wade C, Alford SH, Brody LC, Baxevanis AD. Consumers' use of web-based information and their decisions about multiplex genetic susceptibility testing. J Med Internet Res. 2012; 12: e41.
32. Melzer D, Hogarth S, Liddell K, Ling T, Sanderson S, Zimmern RL. Genetic tests for common diseases: new insights, old concerns. BMJ. 2008; 336: 590-593.
33. Thompson PA. Counterpoint: genetic risk feedback for common disease: time to test the waters. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007; 16: 1727-1729.
34. Su Y, Howard HC, Borry P. Users' motivations to purchase direct-To-consumer genomewide testing: an exploratory study of personal stories. J Community Genet. 2011; 2: 135-146.
35. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research: The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1979.
36. Mascalzoni D, Hicks A, Pramstaller P, Wjst M. Informed consent in the genomics era. PLoS Med. 2008; 5: e192.
37. Tebbetts JB, Tebbetts TB. An approach that integrates patient education and informed consent in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002; 110: 971-978.