Postmortem disclosure of genetic information to family members: Active or passive?

Trends in Molecular Medicine

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 148-153

  Boers, Sarah N ^a   van Delden, Johannes J M ^a   Knoers, Nine V ^a   Bredenoord, Annelien L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Ethics; Family members; Genetic information; Next generation sequencing; Postmortem disclosure

Indexed keywords

BENEFICENCE; CONFIDENTIALITY; CONSENSUS; DEATH; DNA SEQUENCE; EXOME; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC DISORDER; GENETIC INFORMATION; GENETIC PRIVACY; GENETIC RISK; HUMAN; HUMAN GENOME; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING; NONMALEFICENCE; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PHYSICIAN; RELATIVE; REVIEW; FAMILY; POSTMORTEM CHANGE;

DISCLOSURE; FAMILY; GENETIC PRIVACY; HUMANS; POSTMORTEM CHANGES;

EID: 84924557599     PISSN: 14714914     EISSN: 1471499X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.molmed.2015.01.002     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Berg J.S., et al. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet. Med. 2011, 13:499-504.
2. Schuster S.C. Next-generation sequencing transforms today's biology. Nat. Methods 2008, 5:16-18.
3. Zawati M.H., et al. Reporting results from whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing in clinical practice: a proposal for Canada?. J. Med. Genet. 2014, 51:68-70.
4. Bredenoord A.L., et al. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered. Trends Genet. 2011, 27:41-47.
5. Van El C.G., et al. Whole-genome sequencing in health care: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur. J. Hum. genet. 2013, 21:580-584.
6. Lolkema M.P., et al. Ethical, legal and counseling challenges surrounding the return of genetic results in oncology. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 31:1842-1848.
7. Bredenoord A.L., van Delden J.J.M. Disclosing individual genetic research results to deceased participants' relatives by means of a qualified disclosure policy. Am. J. Bioeth. 2012, 12:10-12.
8. Chan B., et al. Genomic inheritances: disclosing individual research results from whole-exome sequencing to deceased participants' relatives. Am. J. Bioeth. 2012, 12:1-8.
9. Battistuzzi L., et al. Communication of clinically useful next-generation sequencing results to at-risk relatives of deceased research participants: towards active disclosure?. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 31:4164-4165.
10. Lolkema M.P., et al. Reply to L. Battistuzzi et al. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 31:4165-4166.
11. Bredenoord A.L., et al. Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: in favor of a qualified disclosure policy. Hum. Mutat. 2011, 32:861-867.
12. Wertz D., et al. Uses of banked DNA. Review of Ethical Issues in Medical Genetics 2003, 85-87. World Health Organization. D. Wertz (Ed.).
13. Fabsitz R.R., et al. Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Circ. Cardiovasc. Genet. 2010, 3:574-580.
14. Ravitsky V., Wilfond S. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am. J. Bioeth. 2006, 6:8-17.
15. Costain G., Bassett A.S. The ever-evolving concept of clinical significance and the potential for sins of omission in genetic research. Am. J. Bioeth. 2012, 12:22-24.
16. Costain G., et al. Caregiver and adult patient perspectives on the importance of diagnosis of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. J. Intellectuel. Disabil. Res. 2012, 56:641-651.
17. Blasimme A., et al. Disclosing results to genomic research participants: differences that matter. Am. J. Bioeth. 2012, 12:20-22.
18. Fullerton S.M., et al. Beneficence, clinical urgency, and the return of individual research results to relatives. Am. J. Bioeth. 2012, 12:9-10.
19. Offit K., et al. The 'duty to warn' a patient's family members about hereditary disease risk. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2004, 292:1469-1473.
20. Bombard Y., et al. Risks to relatives in genomic research: a duty to warn?. Am. J. Bioeth. 2012, 12:12-14.
21. Shah S.K., et al. What does the duty to warn require?. Am. J. Bioeth. 2013, 13:62-63.
22. Wells S.A., et al. Predictive DNA testing and prophylactic thyroidectomy in patients at risk for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2a. N. Engl. J. Med. 1994, 331:828-835.
23. Galvin K., Clayman M.L. Disclosure/disruption: considering why not to disclose genetic information after death. Am. J. Bioeth. 2012, 12:14-16.
24. Rothstein M.A. Should researchers disclose results to descendants?. Am. J. Bioeth. 2013, 10:64-65.
25. Tassé A.M. The return of results of deceased research participants. J. Law Med. Ethics 2011, 39:621-630.
26. May T. Rethinking clinical risk for DNA sequencing. Am. J. Bioeth. 2012, 12:24-26.
27. Ormond K.E., et al. Challenges in the clinical application of whole-genome sequencing. Lancet 2010, 375:1749-1751.
28. Facio F.M., et al. Motivators for participation in a whole-genome sequencing study: implications for translational genomics research. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2011, 19:1213-1217.
29. Finkler K., et al. The new genetics and its consequences for family, kinship, medicine and medical genetics. Soc. Sci. Med. 2003, 57:403-421.
30. Mello M., Wolf L. The Havasupai Indian tribe case - lessons for research involving stored biological samples. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 363:204-207.
31. Jonsen A.R. Genetic testing, individual rights, and the common good. Duties to Others 1994, 271-291. Kluwer Academic Publishers. C.S. Campbell, B.A. Lustig (Eds.).
32. Richards J.R., Bobrow M. Ethical issues in clinical genetics: a report of a Joint Working Party of the College Committee on Ethical Issues in Medicine and the College Committee on Clinical Genetics. J. R. Coll. Physicians Lond. 1991, 25:284-288.
33. Dierickx K. Confidentiality in the context of genetic testing. Questions Éthiques en Médecine Prédictive 2006, 29-40. John Libbey Eurotext. A. de Bouvet (Ed.).
34. Andorno R. The right not to know: an autonomy based approach. J. Med. Ethics 2004, 30:435-440.
35. Laurie G. Recognizing the right not to know: conceptual, professional, and legal implications. J. Law Med. Ethics 2014, 42:53-63.
36. Finlay E., et al. Factors determining dissemination of results and uptake of genetic testing in families with known BRCA1/2 mutations. Genet. Test 2008, 12:81-91.
37. Armstrong K., et al. Factors associated with decisions about clinical BRCA 1/2 testing. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2000, 9:1251-1254.
38. Ropka M.E., et al. Uptake rates for breast cancer genetic testing: a systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15:840-855.
39. Verweij M.F., Hamel B.C. Unexpected findings in identifiable stored blood samples after analysis without consent: moral arguments for and against disclosure. Genet. Couns. 2002, 12:115-121.
40. Callahan J.C. On harming the dead. Ethics 1987, 97:341-352.
41. Ashida S.L., et al. The role of disease perceptions and results sharing in psychological adaptation after genetic susceptibility testing: the REVEAL study. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2010, 18:1296-1301.
42. Bloss C.S., et al. Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011, 364:524-534.
43. Taylor J.S. Personal autonomy, posthumous harm, and presumed consent policies for organ procurement. Public Affairs Quart. 2006, 20:381-404.
44. Galvin K.M., Grill L.H. Opening up the conversation on genetics and genomics in families: the space for communication scholars. Communication Yearbook 33 2009, 213-257. Routledge. C.S. Beck (Ed.).
45. Statement A.S.H.G. Professional disclosure of familial genetic information. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1998, 62:474-483.
46. Biesecker L.G., et al. Next-generation sequencing in the clinic: are we ready?. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2012, 13:818-824.
47. Kollek R., Petersen I. Disclosure of individual research results in clinico-genomic trials: challenges, classification and criteria for decision-making. J. Med. Ethics 2011, 37:271-275.
48. Biesecker L.G. Opportunities and challenges for the integration of massively parallel genomic sequencing into clinical practice: lessons from the ClinSeq project. Genet. Med. 2012, 14:393-398.
49. Clayton E.W., McGuire A.L. The legal risks of returning results of genomics research. Genet. Med. 2012, 14:473-477.
50. McIntyre A. Guilty bystander? On the legitimacy of duty to rescue statutes. Philos. Public Affairs 1994, 23:157-191.