Genetics and the interpersonal elaboration of ethics.

The Ethox Centre, University of Oxford, Institute of Health Sciences, UK.
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics (Impact Factor: 0.78). 10/2001; 22(5):451-9. DOI: 10.1023/A:1013062902531
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Confidentiality in genetic testing poses important ethical challenges to the current primacy of respect for autonomy and patient choice in health care. It also presents a challenge to approaches to decision-making emphasising the ethical importance of the consequences of health care decisions. In this paper a case is described in which respect for confidentiality calls both for disclosure and non-disclosure, and in which respect for patient autonomy and the demand to avoid causing harm each appear to call both for testing without consent, and testing only with consent. This creates problems not only for clinicians, families and patients, but also for those who propose clinical bioethics as a tool for the resolution of such dilemmas. In this paper I propose some practical ways in which ethical issues in clinical genetics and elsewhere, might be addressed. In particular I call for a closer relationship between ethics and communication in health care decision-making and describe an approach to the ethics consultation that places particular emphasis on the value of interpersonal deliberation in the search for moral understanding. I reach these conclusions through an analysis of the concept of 'moral development' in which I argue that the achievement of moral understanding is a necessarily intersubjective project elaborated by moral persons.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Questions about information inform many debates in bioethics. One of the reasons for this is that at least some level of information is taken by many to be a prerequisite of valid consent. For others, autonomy in the widest sense presupposes information, because one cannot be in control of one's life without at least some insight into what it could turn out to contain. Yet not everyone shares this view, and there is a debate about whether or not there is a right to remain in ignorance of one's medical, and especially genetic, information. It is notable, though, that this debate leaves unexamined the assumption that, if a person wants information, he is entitled to it. This paper examines the assumption, specifically in relation to genetics, where learning facts about oneself may reveal facts about other people, particularly one's close relatives. This may be taken as a violation of their privacy, and since privacy is something that we normally think should be respected, it is worth asking whether one ought to abjure the opportunity to obtain genetic information for the sake of privacy. In effect, there may be an argument to be made not just for a right to remain in ignorance, but for a duty to do so.
    Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 04/2011; 32(2):101-15. · 0.78 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prenatal diagnosis (PND) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for later onset and/or reduced penetrance inherited cancer predispositions, e.g. familial adenomatous polyposis, hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer/Lynch syndrome and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, raise a number of ethical issues. Some of these are the same as for conditions which present early in childhood, are fully penetrant and for which no/limited treatment options are possible; others relate to whether reduced penetrance and/or the availability of treatment mean that these are not serious (enough) conditions to warrant tests prior to/during pregnancy or to justify termination of pregnancy. However, attempts to reach a consensus on what counts as a serious (enough) condition in the context of PND and PGD have been unsuccessful. Such a definition may anyway be unhelpful if it cannot also take into account, for example, the woman's/couple's awareness and experience of the condition and the impact of the condition on affected individuals and their families. Individuals affected by, or at high risk of, later onset and/or reduced penetrance inherited cancer predispositions are generally supportive of access to PND and PGD for their own conditions, even if they would not consider using it themselves. Professionals working in clinical cancer genetics need to be prepared to discuss PND and PGD with this group of patients.
    Familial Cancer 08/2009; 9(1):9-14. · 1.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Incidental findings arise when clinically relevant genetic information about a research participant or patient is identified outside the scope of the original research objective or diagnostic test being performed. These findings can relate to carrier status for a heritable condition, misattributed paternity or increased susceptibility to a medical condition. The decision whether to disclose these findings to the research subject or patient is underpinned by many ethical, moral, and potentially legal considerations. There is an urgent need for definitive guidelines for researchers and healthcare professionals. We performed a systematic review of the relevant literature concerning the disclosure of incidental findings, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations, using the prescribed flowchart and checklist. At initial screening, 473 articles were retrieved. The inclusion and exclusion criteria aimed at obtaining data that were relevant and of sufficient quality were applied and a total of four relevant studies were identified, comprising 2,680 individual participants and 1,023 guidance documents. Major themes emerging from the included articles include patient autonomy, patient welfare, harmful secrets, and genetic literacy. The lack of relevant studies emphasizes the urgent need for empirical investigations into the disclosure or non-disclosure of genetic incidental findings, and the provision of guidelines to assist healthcare professionals and researchers. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 11/2012; 158A(12). · 2.30 Impact Factor


Available from
May 16, 2014