Informed consent in direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: The outline of a model between specific and generic consent

Bioethics

Volumn 28, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 343-351

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

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Autonomy; Direct to consumer; Generic consent; Genetic testing; Informed consent; Personal genome testing; Specific consent

Indexed keywords

COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; COMPREHENSION; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMAN; HUMAN GENOME; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MORALITY; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; THEORETICAL MODEL;

COMMERCE; COMPREHENSION; DECISION MAKING; DISCLOSURE; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; GENETIC TESTING; GENOME, HUMAN; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MORALS; PERSONAL AUTONOMY;

EID: 84905925219     PISSN: 02699702     EISSN: 14678519     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12004     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Navigenics, http://www.navigenics.com; 23andme, http://www. 23andme.com [Accessed 17 July 2012].
2. Counsyl, http://www.counsyl.com [Accessed 17 July 2012].
3. 23andme, op. cit. note 1; deCODEme, http://www.decodeme.com [Accessed 17 July 2012].
4. J.P. Evans. Recreational Genomics: What's in It for You? Genet Med 2008; 10: 709-710.
5. A.C.J.W. Janssens & C.M. van Duijn. An Epidemiological Perspective on the Future of Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genome Testing. Investig Genet 2010; 1: 10
6. M.J. Khoury et al. The Scientific Foundation for Personal Genomics: Recommendations from a National Institutes of Health-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Multidisciplinary Workshop. Genet Med 2009; 11: 559-567; R. Mihaescu et al.
7. R. Mihaescu et al. Genetic Risk Profiling for Prediction of Type 2 Diabetes. PLoS Curr 2011; 3: RRN1208
8. A.C.J.W. Janssens, A.A.M. Wilde & I.M van Langen. The Sense and Nonsense of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing for Cardiovascular Disease. Neth Heart J 2011; 19: 85-88.
9. D.J. Hunter, M.J. Khoury & J.M. Drazen. Letting the Genome out of the Bottle: Will We Get our Wish? New Eng J Med 2008; 358: 105-107.
10. S. Hogarth, G. Javitt & D. Melzer. The Current Landscape for Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Legal, Ethical, and Policy Issues. Ann Rev Genom Hum Gen 2008; 9: 161-182
11. European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG). Statement of the ESHG on Direct-to- Consumer Genetic Testing for Health-Related Purposes. Eur J Hum Genet 2010; 18: 1271-1273.
12. R. Geransar & E. Einsiedel. Evaluating Online Direct-to-Consumer Marketing of Genetic Tests: Informed Choices or Buyers Beware? Genetm Test 2008; 12(1): 13-23.
13. C.M.R. Smerecnik et al. Educating the General Public about Multifactorial Genetic Disease: Applying a Theory-Based Framework to Understand Current Public Knowledge. Genet Med 2008; 10: 251-258;
14. U. Hoffrage et al. Medicine: Communicating Statistical Information. Science 2000; 290: 2261-2262.
15. N.C. Manson & O. O'Neill. 2007. Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Pranati. Informed Consent: Are We Doing Enough? Perspect Clin Res 2010; 1: 124-127.
17. R.R. Faden & T.L. Beauchamp. 1986. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. The Nuremberg Code, in Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law 1949; 10: 181-182;
19. C.S. Bloss, N.J. Schork & E.J. Topol. Effect of Direct-to-Consumer Genomewide Profiling to Assess Disease Risk. New Eng J Med 2011; 364: 524-534
20. C.M. McBride, C.H. Wade & K.A. Kaphingst. Consumers' Views of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Information. Ann Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2010; 11: 427-446.
21. D.A. Messner. Informed Choice in Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing for Alzheimer and Other Diseases: Lessons from Two Cases. New Genet Soc 2011; 30: 59-72.
22. 23andme, op. cit. note 1; Pathway Genomics, https://www.pathway. com/ [Accessed 17 July 2012].
23. E.M. Bunnik, M.H.N. Schermer & A.C.J.W. Janssens. Personal Genome Testing: Test Characteristics to Clarify the Discourse on Ethical, Legal and Societal Issues. BMC Med Ethics 2011; 12: 11
24. E.M. Bunnik, M.H.N. Schermer & A.C.J.W. Janssens. The Role of Disease Characteristics in the Ethical Debate on Personal Genome Testing. BMC Med Genom 2012; 5: 4.
25. C. Eng & R.R. Sharp. Bioethical and Clinical Dilemmas of Directto- Consumer Personal Genomic Testing: The Problem of Misattributed Equivalence. Science Transl Med 2010; 2: 17.
26. A.L. McGuire & W. Burke. Raiding the Medical Commons: An Unwelcome Side Effect of Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genome Testing. JAMA 2008; 300: 2669-2671
27. T. Caulfield. Direct-to-Consumer Genetics and Health Policy: A Worst-Case Scenario? Am J Bioeth 2009; 9: 48-50.
28. C.R. Lachance et al. Informational Content, Literacy Demands, and Usability of Websites Offering Health-Related Genetic Tests Directly to Consumers. Genet Med 2010; 12: 304-312.
29. T.L. Beauchamp & J.F. Childress. 1994. Principles of Biomedical Ethics (4th edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30. A.J.G.M. Janssen. Informing Patients about Small Risks: A Comparative Approach. Eur J Health Law 13: 159-172.
31. J.S. King & B.W. Moulton. Rethinking Informed Consent: The Case for Shared Medical Decision-Making. Am J Law Med 2006; 32: 429-501.
32. G.R. Gillett. Informed Consent and Moral Integrity. J Med Ethics 1989; 15: 117-123.
33. P. Martin & R. Frost. Regulating the Commercial Development of Genetic Testing in the UK: Problems, Possibilities and Policy. Critical Social Policy 2003; 23: 186-207: 204
34. A. Singleton et al. Informed Choice in Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing (DTCGT) Websites: A Content Analysis of Benefits, Risks and Limitations. J Genet Counsel 2011; 21: 433-439.
35. World Medical Association. 1964. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Available at: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/ [Accessed
36. R. Böhme & S. Köpsell. 2010. Trained to Accept? A Field Experiment on Consent Dialogs. in Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems. New York, NY: ACM: 2403-2406.
37. E. Beardsley, M. Jefford & L. Mileshkin. Longer Consent Forms for Clinical Trials Compromise Patient Understanding: So Why are They Lengthening? J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: e13-14: e14.
38. S. Elias & G.J. Annas. Generic Consent for Genetic Screening. New Eng J Med 1994; 330: 1611-1613: 1612.
39. J.M.G. Wilson & G. Jungner. 1968. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease. Geneva: World Health Organization.
40. B. Hofmann. Broadening Consent - and Diluting Ethics? J Med Ethics 2009; 35: 125-129.
41. National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC). 1999. Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance. Bethesda, MD: NBAC. Available at: http://bioethics. georgetown.edu/nbac/hbm_exec.pdf [Accessed 17 July 2012].
42. L.E. Wolf & B. Lo. Untapped Potential: IRB Guidance for the Ethical Research Use of Stored Biological Materials. Irb 2004; 26(4): 1-8.
43. E. Eiseman et al. 2003. Case Studies of Existing Human Tissue Repositories. 'Best Practices' for a Biospecimen Resource for the Genomic and Proteomic Era. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Available at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG120.html [Accessed 17 July 2012].
44. L.F. Ross. Mandatory versus Voluntary Consent for Newborn Screening? Kenn Inst Eth J 2010; 20:299-328.
45. V.A. Entwistle et al. Communicating about Screening. BMJ 2008; 337: a1591; Rijksinstituut Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM). 2011. Brochure Hielprik bij Pasgeborenen (in Dutch).
46. H. Kääriäinen et al. 2006. Summary of the Guidelines for Genetic Counselling. Available at: http://www.eurogentest.org/web/files/public/ unit3/summaryofguidelinesMay06.pdf. [Accessed 17 July 2012].
47. J.B. Tebbetts & T.B. Tebbetts. An Approach that Integrates Patient Education and Informed Consent in Breast Augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002: 110: 971-978.