Literature DB >> 12704635

Duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease: genetic counselors' clinical experience.

R Beth Dugan1, Georgia L Wiesner, Eric T Juengst, Maryann O'Riordan, Anne L Matthews, Nathaniel H Robin.   

Abstract

When a patient refuses to inform relatives of their risk for genetic disease, the genetic healthcare professional is faced with conflicting ethical obligations. On one side of the issue is the obligation to respect and protect patients' right to privacy. On the other side is the obligation to prevent harm and promote the welfare of the family members, which suggests a responsibility to warn at-risk relatives, even without the patient's consent. In an effort to examine the actual clinical impact of this issue, we conducted a pilot study that explored genetic counselors' experience with this conflict. A survey was developed and made available to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Questions were either multiple-choice responses or open-ended. Almost half of respondents (119/259; 46%) had had a patient refuse to notify an at-risk relative. The most commonly cited reasons for refusal were estranged family relationships, altering family dynamics, insurance discrimination, and employment discrimination, respectively. Of these 119 counselors, 24 (21%) reported that they seriously considered warning the at-risk relatives without patient consent, and one actually did disclose. Three factors consistently made the counselors less likely to disclose: their patient's potential emotional reaction, the relationship between the relative and patient, and the chance that the relative could be aware of the disease by another means. These results suggest that while the conflict is often encountered in clinical practice, it is rare that the situation remains unresolved to the extent that genetic counselors actually consider warning at-risk relatives. However, when the situation was encountered, the counselors in this study reported a lower rate of disclosure without consent than would have been anticipated based on previous studies that used hypothetical situations. It may be that counselors do not recognize a duty to warn at-risk relatives as integral to their role and professional obligations. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Genetics and Reproduction

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12704635     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.c.10005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet        ISSN: 1552-4868            Impact factor:   3.908


  33 in total

Review 1.  How communication of genetic information within the family is addressed in genetic counselling: a systematic review of research evidence.

Authors:  Álvaro Mendes; Milena Paneque; Liliana Sousa; Angus Clarke; Jorge Sequeiros
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 2.  Ethics and neuropsychiatric genetics: a review of major issues.

Authors:  Steven K Hoge; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Int J Neuropsychopharmacol       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 5.176

3.  Facilitating family communication about predictive genetic testing: probands' perceptions.

Authors:  Clara L Gaff; Veronica Collins; Tiffany Symes; Jane Halliday
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Public perceptions of ethical issues regarding adult predictive genetic testing.

Authors:  Douglas K Martin; Heather L Greenwood; Jeff Nisker
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2009-03-14

5.  Family Communication in Inherited Cardiovascular Conditions in Ireland.

Authors:  Sinead Whyte; Andrew Green; Marion McAllister; Hannah Shipman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 6.  Ethical issues of predictive genetic testing for diabetes.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2009-07-01

7.  Disclosing the disclosure: factors associated with communicating the results of genetic susceptibility testing for Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Sato Ashida; Laura M Koehly; J Scott Roberts; Clara A Chen; Susan Hiraki; Robert C Green
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2009-12

8.  Supporting disclosure of genetic information to family members: professional practice and timelines in cancer genetics.

Authors:  Benjamin Derbez; Antoine de Pauw; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Sandrine de Montgolfier
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.375

9.  Genetic Privacy, Disease Prevention, and the Principle of Rescue.

Authors:  Madison K Kilbride
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 2.683

10.  Evaluating the utilization of educational materials in communicating about Lynch syndrome to at-risk relatives.

Authors:  Kristen Dilzell; Kerry Kingham; Kelly Ormond; Uri Ladabaum
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.375

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.