Ethical signposts for clinical geneticists in secondary variant and incidental finding disclosure discussions

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 361-370

  Christenhusz, Gabrielle M ^a   Devriendt, Koenraad ^a   Van Esch, Hilde ^a   Dierickx, Kris ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Clinical genetics; Disclosure; Ethics; Incidental findings; Libertarian paternalism; Secondary variants; Whole genome sequencing

Indexed keywords

DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; ETHICS; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS; HUMAN; INCIDENTAL FINDING; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL GENETICS; PSYCHOLOGY; STANDARDS;

COMMUNICATION; DISCLOSURE; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; GENETIC TESTING; GENETICS, MEDICAL; HUMANS; INCIDENTAL FINDINGS; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS;

EID: 84933179775     PISSN: 13867423     EISSN: 15728633     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11019-014-9611-8     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Baars, M.J., L. Henneman, et al. 2005a. Deficiency of knowledge of genetics and genetic tests among general practitioners, gynecologists, and pediatricians: A global problem. Genetics in Medicine 7(9): 605–610.
2. Baars, M.J., A.J. Scherpbier, et al. 2005b. Deficient knowledge of genetics relevant for daily practice among medical students nearing graduation. Genetics in Medicine 7(5): 295–301.
3. Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2009. The Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Bennette, C.S., S.B. Trinidad, et al. 2013. Return of incidental findings in genomic medicine: Measuring what patients value—Development of an instrument to measure preferences for information from next-generation testing (IMPRINT). Genetics in Medicine 15(11): 873–881.
5. Berg, J.S., M.J. Khoury, et al. 2011. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: Meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genetics in Medicine 13(6): 499–504.
6. Berkman, B.E., and S.C. Hull. 2014. The “right not to know” in the genomic era: Time to break from tradition? The American Journal of Bioethics 14(3): 28–31.
7. Boenink, M., and S. van der Burg. 2010. Informed decision making about predictive DNA tests: Arguments for more public visibility of personal deliberations about the good life. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 13(2): 127–138.
8. Borry, P., P. Schotsmans, et al. 2004. What is the role of empirical research in bioethical reflection and decision-making? An ethical analysis. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7(1): 41–53.
9. Bowdin, S., P. Ray, et al. 2014. The genome clinic: A multidisciplinary approach to assessing the opportunities and challenges of integrating genomic analysis into clinical care. Human Mutation 35(5): 513–519.
10. Bredenoord, A., H. Kroes, et al. 2011a. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: The debate reconsidered. Trends in Genetics 27(2): 41–47.
11. Bredenoord, A.L., N.C. Onland-Moret, et al. 2011b. Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: In favor of a qualified disclosure policy. Human Mutation 32(8): 861–867.
12. Christenhusz, G. M., K. Devriendt, et al. 2012. Why genomics shouldn't get too personal: In favor of filters: Re: Invited comment by Holly K. Tabor et al. in American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A Volume 155. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 158A: 2641-2642.
13. Christenhusz, G. M., K. Devriendt. 2013a. To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts. European Journal of Human Genetics 21: 248-255.
14. Christenhusz, G. M., K. Devriendt, et al. 2013b. Disclosing incidental findings in genetics contexts: A review of the empirical ethical research. European Journal of Medical Genetics 56(10): 529-540.
15. Christenhusz, G. M., K. Devriendt, et al. 2013c. Secondary variants: In defense of a more fitting term in the incidental findings debate. European Journal of Human Genetics 21: 1331-1334.
16. Christenhusz, G. M., K. Devriendt, et al. 2014. The communication of secondary variants: Interviews with parents whose children have undergone array-CGH testing. Clinical Genetics 86: 207-216.
17. Christenhusz, G. M. 2014. Ethical aspects of genetic testing and the return of secondary variants in the new genomic era. KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
18. Christensen, K.D., and R.C. Green. 2013. How could disclosing incidental information from whole-genome sequencing affect patient behavior? Personalized Medicine 10(4): 377–386.
19. Dalby, S. 1995. GIG response to the UK Clinical Genetics Society report “The genetic testing of children”. Journal of Medical Genetics 32(6): 490–491.
20. Drane, J.F. 1985. The many faces of competency. Hastings Center Report 15(2): 17–21.
21. Driessnack, M., S. Daack-Hirsch, et al. 2013. The disclosure of incidental genomic findings: An “ethically important moment” in pediatric research and practice. Journal of Community Genetics 4(4): 435–444.
22. Driver, J. (2009) The history of utilitarianism. In The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/utilitarianism-history/. Accessed 17 Nov 2014.
23. Foster, M.W., J.J. Mulvihill, et al. 2009. Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information. Genetics in Medicine 11(8): 570–574.
24. Goddard, K.A., E.P. Whitlock, et al. 2013. Description and pilot results from a novel method for evaluating return of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing technologies. Genetics in Medicine 15: 721–728.
25. Green, R.C., J.S. Berg, et al. 2012. Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 14(4): 405–410.
26. Green, R.C., J.S. Berg, et al. 2013. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 15(7): 565–574.
27. Grosse, S.D., C.M. McBride, et al. 2009. Personal utility and genomic information: Look before you leap. Genetics in Medicine 11(8): 575–576.
28. Henry, S.G. 2006. Recognizing tacit knowledge in medical epistemology. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27(3): 187–213.
29. Juengst, E.T., M.A. Flatt, et al. 2012. Personalized genomic medicine and the rhetoric of empowerment. Hastings Center Report 42(5): 34–40.
30. Kakuk, P. 2006. Genetic information in the age of genohype. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 9(3): 325–337.
31. Kakuk, P. 2008. Gene concepts and genethics: Beyond exceptionalism. Science and Engineering Ethics 14(3): 357–375.
32. Kaut, K.P. 2006. Counseling psychology in the era of genetic testing: Considerations for practice, research, and training. The Counseling Psychologist 34(4): 461–488.
33. Kaye, J., E. A. Whitley, et al. (2014). Dynamic consent: A patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. European Journal of Human Genetics. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.71.
34. Knoppers, B.M., and R. Chadwick. 2005. Human genetic research: Emerging trends in ethics. Nature Reviews Genetics 6(1): 75–79.
35. Kocarnik, J.M., and S.M. Fullerton. 2014. Returning pleiotropic results from genetic testing to patients and research participants. JAMA 311(8): 795–796.
36. Kohane, I.S., and P.L. Taylor. 2010. Multidimensional results reporting to participants in genomic studies: Getting it right. Science Translational Medicine 2(37): 37.
37. Kuczewski, M.G. 1996. Reconceiving the family. The process of consent in medical decisionmaking. Hastings Center Report 26(2): 30–37.
38. Lewens, T. 2002. Development aid_ On ontogeny and ethics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 33(2): 195–217.
39. Mardis, E.R. 2008. Next-generation DNA sequencing methods. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 9: 387–402.
40. McBride, C.M., L.M. Koehly, et al. 2010. The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: Will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors? Annual Review of Public Health 31: 89–103.
41. McGuire, A.L., L.B. McCullough, et al. 2013. The indispensable role of professional judgment in genomic medicine. JAMA 309(14): 1465–1466.
42. Miller, D., M. Adam, et al. 2010. Consensus statement: Chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. American Journal of Human Genetics 86(5): 749–764.
43. Miller, F.G., M.M. Mello, et al. 2008. Incidental findings in human subjects research: What do investigators owe research participants? The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36(2): 271–279.
44. Nikku, N. 1997. Informative Paternalism. Case studies in the ethics of promoting and predicting health. Linköping: Linköpings Universitet.
45. Palmboom, G., and D. Willems. 2010. Risk detection in individual health care: Any limits? Bioethics 24(8): 431–438.
46. Parker, M., and A. Lucassen. 2004. Genetic information: A joint account? British Medical Journal 329(7458): 165–167.
47. Peters, S.A., S.M. Laham, et al. 2013. The future in clinical genetics: Affective forecasting biases in patient and clinician decision making. Clinical Genetics 85(4): 312–317.
48. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. (2013). Anticipate and communicate: ethical management of incidental and secondary findings in the clinical, research and direct-to-consumer contexts. http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/FINALAnticipateCommunicate_PCSBI_0.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2014.
49. Ramos, E.M., C. Din-Lovinescu, et al. 2014. Characterizing genetic variants for clinical action. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C: Seminars in Medical Genetics 166C(1): 93–104.
50. Rolland, J.S. 1987. Family illness paradigms: Evolution and significance. Family Systems Medicine 5(4): 482–502.
51. Rolland, J.S., and J.K. Williams. 2005. Toward a biopsychosocial model for 21st-century genetics. Family Process 44(1): 3–24.
52. Sanderson, S., R. Zimmern, et al. 2005. How can the evaluation of genetic tests be enhanced? Lessons learned from the ACCE framework and evaluating genetic tests in the United Kingdom. Genetics in Medicine 7(7): 495–500.
53. Scully, J.L., R. Porz, et al. 2007. You don’t make genetic test decisions from one day to the next—Using time to preserve moral space. Bioethics 21(4): 208–217.
54. Sevdalis, N., and N. Harvey. 2006. Predicting preferences: A neglected aspect of shared decision-making. Health Expectations 9(3): 245–251.
55. Soldan, J., E. Street, et al. 2000. Psychological model for presymptomatic test interviews: Lessons learned from Huntington Disease. Journal of Genetic Counseling 9(1): 15–31.
56. Solomon, B.D. 2014. Incidentalomas in genomics and radiology. New England Journal of Medicine 370(11): 988–990.
57. Sunstein, C.R., and R.H. Thaler. 2003. Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. The University of Chicago Law Review 70(4): 1159–1202.
58. Suter, S.M. 1998. Value neutrality and nondirectiveness: Comments on “Future directions in genetic counseling”. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8(2): 161–163.
59. Townsend, A., S. Adam, et al. 2012. “I want to know what’s in Pandora’s box”: Comparing stakeholder perspectives on incidental findings in clinical whole genomic sequencing. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 158A(10): 2519–2525.
60. Van Riper, M. 2010. Genomics and the family: Integrative frameworks, 109–139. Handbook of Genomics and the Family: Springer.
61. Wachbroit, R., and D. Wasserman. 1995. Patient autonomy and value-neutrality in nondirective genetic counseling. Stanford Law and Policy Review 6(2): 103–111.
62. Walsh, F. 2003. Family resilience: A framework for clinical practice. Family Process 42(1): 1–18.
63. Widdows, A. 2009. Between the individual and the community: The impact of genetics on ethical models. New Genetics and Society 28(2): 173–188.
64. Wolf, S.M. 2008. Introduction: The challenge of incidental findings. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36(2): 216–218.
65. Wolf, S.M., F.P. Lawrenz, et al. 2008. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: Analysis and recommendations. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36(2): 219–248.
66. Worthey, E.A., A.N. Mayer, et al. 2011. Making a definitive diagnosis: Successful clinical application of whole exome sequencing in a child with intractable inflammatory bowel disease. Genetics in Medicine 13(3): 255–262.