Direct-to-consumer genomics on the scales of autonomy

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 310-314

  Vayena, Effy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; CONSUMER; ECONOMICS; ETHICS; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC SCREENING; GENOMICS; HUMAN; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MARKETING; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; POLICY; STANDARDS; TRENDS; UNITED STATES;

COMMERCE; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC TESTING; GENOMICS; HUMANS; MARKETING; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PUBLIC POLICY; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 84925583982     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2014-102026     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. United States Food and Drug Administration. Warning letter to 23andMe, Inc. 22 November 2013. http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/2013/ ucm376296.htm (accessed 30 Dec 2013)
2. Skirton H, Goldsmith L, Jackson L, et al. Direct to consumer genetic testing: a systematic review of position statements, policies and recommendations. Clin Genet 2012;82:210-18.
3. Federation of European Academies of Medicine and European Academies Science Advisory Council. Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing for Health-Related Purposes in the European Union. EASAC policy report 18. July 2012.
4. US Food and Drug Administration. In vitro Diagnostics. Letters to 23andMe and other companies. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ InVitroDiagnostics/default.htm (accessed 30 Dec 2013).
5. Caulfield T, McGuire AL. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: perceptions, problems, and policy responses. Annu Rev Med 2012;63:23-33.
6. Raz J. The morality of freedom. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986:369-99.
7. Bunnik EM, Janssens AC, Schermer MH. Informed consent in direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: the outline of a model between specific and generic consent. Bioethics 2014;28:343-51.
8. O'Neill O. Some limits of informed consent. J Med Ethics 2003;29:4-7.
9. Howard HC, Knoppers BM, Borry P. Blurring lines. The research activities of direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies raise questions about consumers as research subjects. EMBO Report 2010;11:579-82.
10. Allyse M. 23 and me, we, and you: direct-to-consumer genetics, intellectual property, and informed consent. Trends Biotechnol 2013;31:68-9.
11. Borry P, Shabani M, Howard HC. Nonpropositional content in direct-to-consumer genetic testing advertisements. Am J Bioeth 2013;13:14-6.
12. Singleton A, Erby LH, Foisie KV, et al. Informed Choice in Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing (DTCGT) Websites: a Content Analysis of Benefits, Risks, and Limitations. J Genet Couns 2012;21:433-9.
13. Juengst ET, Flatt MA, Settersten RA Jr. Personalized genomic medicine and the rhetoric of empowerment. Hastings Center Report 2012;42:34-40.
14. Sterckx S, Cockbain J, Howard H, et al. "Trust is not Something you Can Reclaim Easily": Patenting in the Field of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing. Genet Med 2013;15:382-7.
15. Henderson GE. Is informed consent broken? Am J Med Sci 2011;342:267-72.
16. Hayden E. Informed consent: a broken contract. Nature 2012;486:312-14.
17. Wright CF, Hall A, Zimmern RL. Regulating direct-to-consumer genetic tests: what is all the fuss about? Genet Med 2011;4:295-300.
18. Howard HC, Avard D, Borry P. Are the kids really all right? Direct-to-consumer genetic testing in children: are company policies clashing with professional norms? Eur J Hum Genet 2011;19:1122-6.
19. Kaveny C. Law's virtues: fostering autonomy and solidarity in American society. Washington, DC, Georgetown University Press, 2012:111-40.
20. Spencer DH, Lockwood C, Topol E, et al. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: reliable or risky? Clin Chem 2011;57:1641-4.
21. Steinberger J. Testing BRCA1 positive: what happens next. http://www. huffingtonpost.com/jill-steinberg/ (accessed 2 Jan 2014).
22. Roberts ME, Riegert-Johnson DL, Thomas BC. Self diagnosis of Lynch syndrome using direct to consumer genetic testing: a case study. J Genet Couns 2011;20:327-9.
23. Francke U, Dijamco C, Kiefer AK, et al. Dealing with the unexpected: consumer responses to direct-access BRCA mutation testing. Peer J 2013;1:e8.
24. Prainsack B, Vayena E. Beyond the clinic: 'direct-to-consumer' genomic profiling services and pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics 2013;14:403-12.
25. Giovanni MA, Fickie MR, Lehmann LS, et al. Health-care referrals from direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2010;14:817-9.
26. Bloss CS, Wineinger NE, Darst BF, et al. Impact of direct-to-consumer genomic testing at long term follow-up. J Med Genet 2013;50:393-400.
27. Darst BF, Madlensky L, Schork NJ, et al. Perceptions of genetic counseling services in direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Clin Genet 2013;84:335-9.
28. Adams SD, Evans JP, Aylsworth AS. Direct-to-consumer genomic testing offers little clinical utility but appears to cause minimal harm. N C Med J 2013;74:494-8.
29. Bloss CS, Schork NJ, Topol EJ. Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N Engl J Med 2011;364:524-34.
30. Reid RJ, McBride CM, Alford SH, et al. Association between health-service use and multiplex genetic testing. Genet Med 2012;14:852-9.
31. Vayena E, Prainsack B. Regulating genomics: time for a broader vision. Sci Transl Med 2013;5:198ed12.
32. Beckman L. Are genetic self-tests dangerous? Assessing the commercialization of genetic testing in terms of personal autonomy. Theor Med Bioeth 2004;25:387-98.
33. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(10): CD001431.
34. Vayena E, Gourna E, Streuli J, et al. Experiences of early users of direct-to-consumer genomics in Switzerland: an exploratory study. Public Health Genomics 2012;15:352-62.
35. Vayena E, Ineichen C, Stupka E, et al. Playing a part in research? University students attitudes to direct-to-consumer genomics. Public Health Genomics 2014;17:158-68.
36. Vernez SL, Salari K, Ormond KE, et al. Personal genome testing in medical education: student experiences with genotyping in the classroom. Genome Med 2013;5:24-6.
37. Leachman S, MacArthur DG, Angrist M, et al. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: personalized medicine in evolution. Education Book, American Society for Clinical Oncology. 2011:34-40.
38. Foster MW, Mulvihill JJ, Sharp RR. Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information. Genet Med 2009;11:570-4.
39. Hacking I. Genetics, biosocial groups and the future of identity. Daedalus 2006;135:81-95.
40. Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Hammitt JK, et al. Willingness-to-pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: a survey of US residents. Health Econ 2012;21:238-51.
41. Rahman B, Meiser B, Sachdev P, et al. To know or not to know: an update of the literature on the psychological and behavioral impact of genetic testing for Alzheimer disease risk. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2012;16:935-42.
42. Kopits IM, Chen C, Roberts JS. Willingness to pay for genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease: a measure of personal utility. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2011;15:871-5.
43. Huibers AK, van't Spijker A. The autonomy paradox: predictive genetic testing and autonomy: three essential problems. Patient Educ Couns 1998;35:53-62.
44. Vayena E, Prainsack B. The challenge of personal genomics in Germany. Nat Biotechnol 2013;31:16-7.