Informed Consent and the Disclosure of Clinical Results to Research Participants

American Journal of Bioethics

Volumn 17, Issue 7, 2017, Pages 58-60

  Blasimme, Alessandro ^a   Moret, Celine ^b   Hurst, Samia A ^b   Vayena, Effy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ETHICS; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RESEARCH SUBJECT;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DISCLOSURE; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN RIGHTS; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; RESEARCH SUBJECTS;

EID: 85021716086     PISSN: 15265161     EISSN: 15360075     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1328532     Document Type: Note

References (10)

1. Fernandez, C. V., E., Bouffet, D., Malkin, et al. 2014. Attitudes of parents toward the return of targeted and incidental genomic research findings in children. Genetics in Medicine 16 (8):633–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.201.
2. Green, R. C., J. S., Berg, W. W., Grody, et al. 2013. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 15 (7):565–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.73.
3. Middleton, A., K. I., Morley, E., Bragin, et al. 2016. Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research. European Journal of Human Genetics 24 (1):21–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2015.58.
4. Moret, C., A., Mauron, S., Fokstuen, P., Makrythanasis, and S. A., Hurst. 2016. Defining categories of actionability for secondary findings in next-generation sequencing. Journal of Medical Ethics, December. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103677.
5. Murphy Bollinger, J., J. F. P., Bridges, A., Mohamed, and D., Kaufman. 2014. Public preferences for the return of research results in genetic research:A conjoint analysis. Genetics in Medicine 16 (12):932–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2014.50.
6. Regier, D. A., S. J., Peacock, R., Pataky, et al. 2015. Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing:A discrete-choice experiment. Canadian Medical Association Journal 187 (6):E190–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.140697.
7. Shahmirzadi, L., E. C., Chao, E., Palmaer, M. C., Parra, S., Tang, and K. D., Farwell Gonzalez. 2014. Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 16 (5):395–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.153.
8. Sugarman, J., 2017. Examining provisions related to consent in the revised Common Rule. American Journal of Bioethics 17 (7):22–26.
9. Townsend, A., S., Adam, P. H., Birch, Z., Lohn, F., Rousseau, and J. M., Friedman. 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):2519–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.35554.
10. Vayena, E., and J., Tasioulas. 2013. Genetic incidental findings:Autonomy regained? Genetics in Medicine 15 (11):868–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.104.