Next Generation DNA Sequencing: Always Allow an Opt Out

American Journal of Bioethics

Volumn 15, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 28-30

  Bredenoord, Annelien L ^a   Bijlsma, Rhodé M ^a   van Delden, Hans ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DNA SEQUENCE; ETHICS; GENETIC DISEASES, INBORN; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMAN; METAGENOMICS; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PRIMARY PREVENTION;

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

EID: 84938532567     PISSN: 15265161     EISSN: 15360075     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1039726     Document Type: Note

References (12)

1. ACMG Board of Directors. 2014. ACMG Policy Statement: Updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 17(1):68–69
2. A.L.Bredenoord,, H.Y.Kroes, E.Cuppen, M.Parker, and J.J.M.Van Delden. 2011a. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: The debate reconsidered. Trends in Genetics 27(2): 41–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2010.11.004
3. A.L.Bredenoord,, N.C.Onland-Moret, and J.J.M.Van Delden. 2011b. Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: In favor of a qualified disclosure policy. Human Mutation 32: 1–7
4. A.L.Bredenoord,, M.C.De Vries, and J.J.M.Van Delden. 2013. Next generation sequencing: Does the next generation still have a right to an open future? Nature Review Genetics 14: 306 doi:10.1038/nrg3459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrg3459
5. R.C.Green,, J.S.Berg, W.W.Grody, et al., American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. 2013. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 15(7):565–574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.73
6. K.Hitch,, J.Galen, J.Guiltinan, J.Kianmahd, J.Youngblom, and A.Blanco. 2014. Lynch syndrome patients' views of and preferences for return of results following whole exome sequencing. Journal of Genetics Counseling 23: 539–551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9687-6
7. G.Lázaro-Muñoz,, J.M.Conley, A.M.Davis, M.Van Riper, R.L.Walker, and E.T.Juengst. 2015. Looking for trouble: Preventive genomic sequencing in the general population and the role of patient choice. American Journal of Bioethics 15(7): 3–14.
8. M.P.Lolkema,, C.G.Gadellaa-van Hooijdonk, A.L.Bredenoord, et al. 2013. Ethical and counselling challenges surrounding the return of genetic results in oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology 31(15): 1842–1848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.45.2789
9. N.Ram, 2008. Tiered consent and the tyranny of choice. Jurimetrics Journal 48: 253–284
10. M.E.Ropka,, J.Wenzel, E.K.Phillips, et al. 2006. Uptake rates for breast cancer genetic testing: A systematic review. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers Preventive 15: 840–855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0002
11. B.Schwartz, 2004. The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York, NY: Harper Perennial
12. C.R.Sunstein,, and R.H.Thaler. 2003. Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review 70(4):1159–1202. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1600573