Becoming partners, retaining autonomy: ethical considerations on the development of precision medicine

BMC Medical Ethics

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 1-8

  Blasimme, Alessandro ^a,b   Vayena, Effy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PAUL SABATIER   (France)

Author keywords

Autonomy; Ethics; Participation; Personalized medicine; Precision medicine

Indexed keywords

DRAWING; ETHICS; HUMAN; JUSTICE; LANGUAGE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MORALITY; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIOBANK; BIOETHICS; COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; ETHICAL THEORY; FACTUAL DATABASE; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PHILOSOPHY; RESEARCH ETHICS; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIOETHICAL ISSUES; BIOETHICS; BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; DATABASES, FACTUAL; ETHICAL THEORY; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; MEDICAL RECORDS; MORALS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PHILOSOPHY; PRECISION MEDICINE; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; SOCIAL VALUES;

EID: 84994030122     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726939     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12910-016-0149-6     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Hamburg MA, Collins FS. The path to personalized medicine. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(4):301-4.
2. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(9):793-9.
3. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New york and Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.
4. Callahan D. Autonomy: a moral good, not a moral obsession. Hastings Cent Rep. 1984;5:40-2.
5. Knoppers BM, Chadwick R. Human genetic research: emerging trends in ethics. Nat Rev Genet. 2005;6(1):75-9.
6. Elenko E, Underwood L, Zohar D. Defining digital medicine. Nat Biotech. 2015;33:456-61.
7. Cambon-Thomsen A. The social and ethical issues of post-genomic human Biobanks. Nat Rev Genet. 2004;5(11):866-73.
8. Godard B, Schmidtke J, Cassiman J-J, Aymé S. Data storage and DNA banking for biomedical research: informed consent, confidentiality, quality issues, ownership, return of benefits. A professional perspective. Eur J Hum Genet. 2003;11(S2):S88-122.
9. Koenig BA. Have we asked too much of consent? Hastings Cent Rep. 2014;44(4):33-4.
10. Appelbaum PS, Parens E, Waldman CR, Klitzman R, Fyer A, Martinez J, et al. Models of consent to return of incidental findings in genomic research. Hastings Cent Rep. 2014;44(4):22-32.
11. Blasimme A, Soulier A, Julia S, Leonard S, Cambon-Thomsen A. Disclosing results to genomic research participants: differences that matter. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12(10):20-2.
12. Gliwa C, Berkman BE. Do researchers have an obligation to actively look for genetic incidental findings? Am J Bioeth. 2013;13(2):32-42.
13. Anastasova V, Blasimme A, Julia S, Cambon-Thomsen A. Genomic incidental findings: reducing the burden to be fair. Am J Bioeth. 2013;13(2):52-4.
14. Vayena E, Tasioulas J. Genetic incidental findings: autonomy regained? Genet Med. 2013b. 15 (11): 868-70.
15. Lemke AA, Halverson C, Ross LF. Biobank participation and returning research results: perspectives from a deliberative engagement in South Side Chicago. Am J Med Genet A. 2012;158A(5):1029-37. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.34414.
16. Chadwick R. A communitarian turn in bioethics: myth or reality? Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2011;20:546-53.
17. Avard D, Grégoire G. Involving the Public in Public Health Genomics: A Review of Guidelines and Policy Statements. 2008. https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/handle/1866/2345. Accessed 10 Dec 2015.
18. Avard D, Bucci LM, Burgess MM, Kaye J, Heeney C, Farmer Y, Cambon-Thomsen A. Public Health Genomics (PHG) and public participation: points to consider. J Public Deliberation. 2009;5(1):7.
19. Kaye J, Heeney C, Hawkins N, de Vries J, Boddington P. Data sharing in genomics - re-shaping scientific practice. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10(5):331-35.
20. O’Doherty KC, Burgess MM. Engaging the public on biobanks: outcomes of the BC biobank deliberation. Public Health Genomics. 2009;12(4):203-15.
21. Avard D, Stanton Jean M, Grégoire G, Page M. Public involvement in health genomics: the reality behind the policies. Int J Consum Stud. 2010;34(5):508-24.
22. Kaye J, Boddington P, de Vries J, Hawkins N, Melham K. Ethical implications of the use of whole genome methods in medical research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010;18(4):398-403.
23. Knoppers BM, Leroux T, Doucet H, Godard B, Laberge C, Stanton-Jean M, et al. Framing genomics, public health research and policy: points to consider. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(4):224-34.
24. O’Doherty KC, Hawkins A. Structuring public engagement for effective input in policy development on human tissue biobanking. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(4):197-206.
25. Kaye J, Curren L, Anderson N, Edwards K, Fullerton SM, Kanellopoulou N, et al. From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13(5):371-76.
26. Erlich Y, Williams JB, Glazer D, Yocum K, Farahany N, Olson M, et al. Redefining genomic privacy: trust and empowerment. PLoS Biol. 2014;12(11):e1001983.
27. Wicks P, Vaughan T, Heywood J. Subjects no more: What happens when trial participants realize they hold the power? BMJ. 2014;348:g368.
28. Anderson M, McCleary KK. From passengers to co-pilots: patient roles expand. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(291):291fs25.
29. Emanuel EJ, Menikoff J. Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(12):1145-50.
30. Hudson KL, Collins FS. Bringing the common rule into the 21st century. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2293-6.
31. Raz J. Autonomy, Toleration, and the Harm Principle. In: Mendon S, editor. Justifying Toleration: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988. p. 155-75.
32. Hagendijk R, Irwin A. Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva. 2006;44(2):167-84.
33. Moore A. Public bioethics and public engagement: the politics of ‘proper Talk’. Public Underst Sci. 2010;19(2):197-211.
34. Gibson A, Britten N, Lynch J. Theoretical directions for an emancipatory concept of patient and public involvement. Health. 2012;16(5):531-47.
35. Hood L, Auffray C. Participatory medicine: a driving force for revolutionizing healthcare. Genome Med. 2013;5(12):110. doi:10.1186/gm514.
36. Vayena E, Tasioulas J. Adapting standards: ethical oversight of participant-led health research. PLoS Med. 2013;10(3):e1001402.
37. Vayena E, Brownsword R, Edwards SJ, Greshake B, Kahn JP, Ladher N, Montgomery J, O'Connor D, O'Neill O, Richards MP, Rid A, Sheehan M, Wicks P, Tasioulas J. Research led by participants: a new social contract for a new kind of research. J Med Ethics. 2016;42(4):216-9.
38. Raz J. Facing diversity: the case of epistemic abstinence. Philos Public Aff. 1990;19(1):3-46.
39. Jonas H. Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. Daedalus. 1969;98(2):219-47.
40. Katz J. The regulation of human research--reflections and proposals. Clin Res. 1973;21(4):785-91.
41. Katz J. Human experimentation and human rights. Saint Louis Univ Law J. 1993;38:7.
42. Ramsey P. Patient as Person: Exploration in Medical Ethics. New editionth ed. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1974.
43. Blasimme A, Vayena E. Tailored to you: public engagement and the political legitimation of precision medicine. Perspect Biol Med. 2016 (in press).
44. Vayena E. Direct-to-consumer genomics on the scales of autonomy. J Med Ethics. 2015;41(4):310-4.
45. Raz J. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.