Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      ‘Is this knowledge mine and nobody else's? I don't feel that.’ Patient views about consent, confidentiality and information-sharing in genetic medicine

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In genetic medicine, a patient's diagnosis can mean their family members are also at risk, raising a question about how consent and confidentiality should function in clinical genetics. This question is particularly pressing when it is unclear whether a patient has shared information. Conventionally, healthcare professionals view confidentiality at an individual level and ‘disclosure without consent’ as the exception, not the rule. The relational joint account model, by contrast, conceptualises genetic information as confidential at the familial level and encourages professionals to take disclosure as the default position. In this study, we interviewed 33 patients about consent and confidentiality and analysed data thematically. Our first theme showed that although participants thought of certain aspects of genetic conditions—for example, the way they affect day-to-day health—as somewhat personal, they perceived genetic information—for example, the mutation in isolation—as familial. Most thought these elements were separable and thought family members had a right to know the latter, identifying a broad range of harms that would justify disclosure. Our second theme illustrated that participants nonetheless had some concerns about what, if any, implications there would be of professionals treating such information as familial and they emphasised the importance of being informed about the way their information would be shared. Based on these results, we recommend that professionals take disclosure as the default position, but make clear that they will treat genetic information as familial during initial consultations and address any concerns therein.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Rigour and qualitative research.

          N Mays, C Pope (1995)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Genetic professionals' reports of nondisclosure of genetic risk information within families.

            Patients attending genetic clinics are often the main gatekeepers of information for other family members. There has been much debate about the circumstances under which professionals may have an obligation, or may be permitted, to pass on personal genetic information about their clients but without their consent to other family members. We report findings from the first prospective study investigating the frequency with which genetics professionals become concerned about the failure of clients to pass on such information to their relatives. In all, 12 UK and two Australian regional genetic services reported such cases over 12 months, including details of actions taken by professionals in response to the clients' failure to disclose information. A total of 65 cases of non-disclosure were reported, representing <1% of the genetic clinic consultations in the collaborating centres during the study period. These included 39 cases of the failure of parents not passing full information to their adult offspring, 22 cases where siblings or other relatives were not given information and four cases where information was withheld from partners -- including former and prospective partners. Professionals reported clients' reasons for withholding information as complex, more often citing concern and the desire to shield relatives from distress rather than poor family relationships. In most cases, the professionals took further steps to persuade their clients to make a disclosure but in no instance did the professional force a disclosure without the client's consent.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Defining and managing incidental findings in genetic and genomic practice.

              The rapidly declining costs and increasing speeds of whole-genome analysis mean that genetic testing is undergoing a shift from targeted approaches to broader ones that look at the entire genome. As whole-genome technologies gain widespread use, questions about the management of so-called incidental findings-those unrelated to the question being asked-need urgent consideration. In this review, we bring together current understanding and arguments about (1) appropriate terminology, (2) the determination of clinical utility and when to disclose incidental findings, (3) the differences in management and disclosure in clinical, research and commercial contexts and (4) ethical and practical issues about familial implications and recontacting those tested. We recommend that greater international consensus is developed around the disclosure and management of incidental findings, with particular attention to when, and how, less clear-cut results should be communicated. We suggest that there is no single term that captures all the issues around these kinds of findings and that different terms may, therefore, need to be used in different settings. We also encourage the use of clear consent processes, but suggest that the absence of consent should not always preclude disclosure. Finally, we recommend further research to identify ways to implement the use of a genome output as a resource, accessible over time, to facilitate appropriate disclosure and recontact when the significance of a previously unclear incidental finding is clarified. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Med Ethics
                J Med Ethics
                medethics
                jme
                Journal of Medical Ethics
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0306-6800
                1473-4257
                March 2016
                7 January 2016
                : 42
                : 3
                : 174-179
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Clinical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton , Southampton, UK
                [2 ]Wessex Clinical Genetics Service, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Sandi Dheensa, Clinical Ethics and Law, University of Southampton, AB203, MP801, South Academic Block, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK; s.dheensa@ 123456soton.ac.uk
                Article
                medethics-2015-102781
                10.1136/medethics-2015-102781
                4789809
                26744307
                912e2cb7-1c35-4798-9c04-ffa410903e0e
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 10 March 2015
                : 9 November 2015
                : 7 December 2015
                Categories
                1506
                Genetics
                Paper
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Ethics
                autonomy,genetic screening/testing,confidentiality/privacy,family,genethics
                Ethics
                autonomy, genetic screening/testing, confidentiality/privacy, family, genethics

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content88

                Cited by30

                Most referenced authors140