Looking for Trouble: Preventive Genomic Sequencing in the General Population and the Role of Patient Choice

American Journal of Bioethics

Volumn 15, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 3-14

  Lázaro Muñoz, Gabriel ^a   Conley, John M ^a,b   Davis, Arlene M ^a   Van Riper, Marcia ^c   Walker, Rebecca L ^a   Juengst, Eric T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Special thanks to Nicole Diaz for her excellent research assistance   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

decision making; genetics (clinical); informed consent; law; medical humanities; public health

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DNA SEQUENCE; ECONOMICS; ETHICS; GENETIC DISEASES, INBORN; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; GENETIC PRIVACY; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS; GENOMICS; HUMAN; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; METAGENOMICS; PATERNALISM; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PRIMARY PREVENTION; PROCEDURES; PUBLIC HEALTH; TRENDS;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; GENETIC DISEASES, INBORN; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; GENETIC PRIVACY; GENETIC TESTING; GENOMICS; HUMANS; METAGENOMICS; PATERNALISM; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PRIMARY PREVENTION; PUBLIC HEALTH; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA;

EID: 84938515952     PISSN: 15265161     EISSN: 15360075     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1039721     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Ad Hoc Committee on Genetic Counseling of the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG). 1975. Genetic counseling. American Journal of Human Genetics 27(2): 240–242.
2. M.Allyse, and M.Michie. 2013. Not-so-incidental findings: The ACMG recommendations on the reporting of incidental findings in clinical whole genome and whole exome sequencing. Trends in Biotechnology 31(8): 439–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.04.006.
3. Ambry Genetics. 2014. Master pricelist [Prices listed for CancerNext and ExomeNext tests]. Available at: http://www.ambrygen.com/sites/default/files/Master_Pricelist_testName_7_7_2014.pdf (accessed November26, 2014).
4. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. 2014. ACMG updates recommendation on “opt out” for genome sequencing return of results. Available at: https://www.acmg.net/docs/Release_ACMGUpdatesRecommendations_final.pdf (accessed November26, 2014).
5. American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. 2001. Code of medical ethics: Opinion 10.015: The patient–physician relationship. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion10015.page? (accessed November26, 2014).
6. R.Andorno 2004. The right not to know: An autonomy-based approach. Journal of Medical Ethics 30(5): 435–440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.2002.001578.
7. J.S.Berg,, M.Adams, N.Nassar, et al. 2013. An informatics approach to analyzing the incidentalome. Genetics in Medicine 15(1): 36–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2012.112.
8. J.S.Berg,, M.J.Khoury, and J.P.Evans. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e318220aaba.
9. B.E.Berkman,, and S.C.Hull. 2014. The “Right not to Know” in the genomic era: Time to break from tradition? American Journal of Bioethics 14(3): 28–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2014.880313.
10. W.Burke,, A.H.M.Antommaria, R.Bennett, et al. 2013. Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk! Genetics in Medicine 15(11): 854–859. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.113.
11. Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
12. R.Chadwick, 2009. The right to know and the right not to know – ten years on. In Disclosure dilemmas, ed. C.Rehmann-Sutter and H.Müller, 9–18. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
13. Cruzan v. Mo. Dep't of Health 497 U.S. 261. (1990).
14. Culbertson v. Mertnitz. 602 N.E. 2d 98 (Ind. 1992).
15. J.P.Evans, 2013. Finding common ground. Genetics in Medicine 15(11): 852–853. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.150.
16. J.P.Evans,, and J.S.Berg. 2011. Next-generation DNA sequencing, regulation, and the limits of paternalism: The next challenge. Journal of the American Medical Association 306(21): 2376–2377.
17. J.P.Evans,, J.S.Berg, A.F.Olshan, et al. 2013. We screen newborns don't we?: Realizing the promise of public health genomics. Genetics in Medicine 15(5): 332–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.11.
18. C.Fischer,, C.Engel, C.Sutter, et al. 2012. BRCA 1/2 testing: Uptake, phenocopies, and strategies to improve detection rates in initially negative families. Clinical Genetics 82(5): 478–483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2011.01788.x.
19. A.K.M.Foreman,, K.Lee, and J.P.Evans. 2013. The NCGENES project: Exploring the new world of genomic sequencing. North Carolina Medical Journal 74(6): 500–504.
20. GeneScreen Project. 2014. Research. Center for Genomics and Society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Available at: http://genomics.unc.edu/genomicsandsociety/Research.html (accessed November26, 14).
21. R.C.Green,, J.S.Berg, W.W.Grody, et al. 2013. ACMG recommendations for reporting incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 15(7): 565–574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.73.
22. J.Harris,, and K.Keywood. 2001. Ignorance, information and autonomy. Theoretical Medicine & Bioethics 22(5): 415–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1013058801622.
23. R.P.Harris,, G.F.Sawaya, V.A.Moyer, and N.Calonge. 2011. Reconsidering the criteria for evaluating proposed screening programs: Reflections from 4 current and former members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Epidemiologic Reviews 33: 20–35.
24. I.S.Kohane,, D.R.Masys, and R.B.Altman. 2006. The incidentalome: A threat to genomic medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association 296(2): 212–215.
25. W.Kohlmann,, and S.B.Gruber. 2014. Lynch syndrome, GeneReviews. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1211 (accessed November26, 2014).
26. G.Laurie, 2014. Recognizing the right not to know: Conceptual, professional, and legal implications. Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 42(1): 53–62.
27. G.Lázaro-Muñoz, 2014. The fiduciary relationship model for managing clinical genomic “incidental” findings. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 42(4): 576–589.
28. D.F.Maron, 2014. Patients can now choose not to know their own DNA secrets. Scientific American, April 1. Available at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patients-can-now-choose-not-to-know-their-own-dna-secrets/ (accessed November26, 2014).
29. A.L.McGuire,, S.Joffe, B.A.Koenig, et al. 2013. Ethics and genomic incidental findings. Science 340: 1047–1048.
30. V.A.Moyer,, United States Preventive Services Task Force. 2014. Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 160(4): 271–281.
31. National Cancer Institute. 2014. BRCA1 and BRCA2: Cancer risk and genetic testing fact sheet. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/BRCA#r1 (accessed November26, 2014).
32. National Human Genome Research Institute. 2014. DNA sequencing costs: Data from the NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program (GSP). Available at: http://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/ (accessed November26, 2014).
33. National Society of Genetic Counselors. 2006. NSGC code of ethics, Section II. Available at: http://nsgc.org/p/cm/ld/fid=12 (accessed November26, 2014).
34. J.C.Oosterwijk,, J.de Vries, M.Mourits, et al. 2014. Genetic testing and familial implications in breast-ovarian cancer families. Maturitas 78(4):252–257.
35. D.E.Ost, 1984. The ‘right’ not to know. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9(3): 301–312.
36. D.Paul, 1995. Controlling human heredity: 1865–Present. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanity Press International.
37. M.Parker, 2012. Ethical problems and genetic practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38. President's Council on Bioethics. 2008. The changing moral focus of newborn screening. Washington, DC: President's Council on Bioethics.
39. R.Rhodes, 1998. Genetic links, family ties, and social bonds: Rights and responsibilities in the face of genetic knowledge. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23(1): 10–30.
40. L.F.Ross,, M.A.Rothstein, and E.W.Clayton. 2013. Mandatory extended searches in all genome sequencing: “Incidental findings,” patient autonomy, and shared decision making. Journal of the American Medical Association 310(4): 367–368.
41. M.A.Rothstein, 2009. GINA's beauty is only skin deep. GeneWatch 22(2): 9–12.
42. M.A.Rothstein, 2012. Access to sensitive information in segmented electronic health records, Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 40(2): 394–400.
43. E.Rowland,, and A.Metcalf. 2013. Communicating inherited genetic risk between parent and child: A meta-thematic synthesis. International Journal of Nursing Studies 50(6): 870–80.
44. Schloendorff v. Soc'y N.Y. Hosp. 1914. 105 N.E. 92 (N.Y.).
45. A.Stern, 2012. Telling genes: The story of genetic counseling in America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
46. D.M.Studdert,, M.M.Mello,, M.K.Levy,, et al. 2007. Geographic variation in informed consent law: Two standards for disclosure of treatment risks. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4: 103–124.
47. K.Sweeny,, A.Ghane, A.M.Legg, et al. 2014. Predictors of genetic testing decisions: A systematic review and critique of the literature. Journal of Genetic Counseling 23(3): 263–288.
48. U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 1997. Universal declaration of human genome and human rights: Article 5(c), Resolution 16 adopted by the General Conference at its 29th Session. Records of the General Conference, vol. 1, at 43. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001102/110220E.pdf
49. M.Van Riper, 2005. Genetic testing and the family. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health 50(3): 227–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmwh.2005.02.008.
50. M.Van Riper, 2010. Genomics and the family: Integrative frameworks. In Handbook of genomics and the family, ed. K.P.Tercyak, 109–139. New York, NY: Springer.
51. M.Van Riper,, & A.Gallo, 2006. Family, health, and genomics. In Handbook of families and health: Interdisciplinary perspective, ed. D.R.Crane and E.S.Marshall, 195–217. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52. E.Vayena,, and J.Tasioulas. 2013. Genetic incidental findings: Autonomy regained. Genetics in Medicine 15(11): 868–870. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.104.
53. A.J.Viera, 2011. Predisease: When does it make sense? Epidemiologic Reviews 33: 122–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxr002.
54. B.S.Wilfond,, and K.Nolan. 1993. National policy development for the clinical application of genetic diagnostic technologies: Lessons from cystic fibrosis. Journal of the American Medical Association 270(24): 2948–2954. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1993.03510240060033.
55. M.Wiseman,, C.Dancyger, and S.Michie. 2010. Communicating genetic risk information within families: A review. Familial Cancer 9(4): 691–703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10689-010-9380-3.
56. S.M.Wolf,, F.P.Lawrenz, C.A.Nelson, et al. 2008. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: Analysis and recommendations. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36(2): 219–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00266.x.
57. S.M.Wolf,, G.J.Annas, and S.Elias. 2013. Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics. Science 340: 1049–1050. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1239119.
58. E.Youngblom,, and J.W.Knowles, 2014. Familial hypercholesterolemia, GeneReviews. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK174884/ (accessed November26, 2014).