Literature DB >> 15467071

The right not to know: an autonomy based approach.

R Andorno1.   

Abstract

The emerging international biomedical law tends to recognise the right not to know one's genetic status. However, the basis and conditions for the exercise of this right remain unclear in domestic laws. In addition to this, such a right has been criticised at the theoretical level as being in contradiction with patient's autonomy, with doctors' duty to inform patients, and with solidarity with family members. This happens especially when non-disclosure poses a risk of serious harm to the patient's relatives who, without that vital information, could be deprived of preventive or therapeutic measures. This paper argues, firstly, that individuals may have a legitimate interest in not knowing their genetic make up to avoid serious psychological consequences; secondly, that this interest, far from being contrary to autonomy, may constitute an enhancement of autonomy; thirdly, that the right not to know cannot be presumed, but must be "activated" by the individual's explicit choice, and fourthly, that this is not an absolute right, in the sense that it may be restricted when disclosure to the patient is necessary in order to avoid a risk of serious harm to third persons.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genetics and Reproduction; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15467071      PMCID: PMC1733927          DOI: 10.1136/jme.2002.001578

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  9 in total

1.  Protecting and promoting privacy in an uncertain world: further defences of ignorance and the right not to know.

Authors:  G T Laurie
Journal:  Eur J Health Law       Date:  2000-06

2.  Challenging medical-legal norms. The role of autonomy, confidentiality, and privacy in protecting individual and familial group rights in genetic information.

Authors:  G T Laurie
Journal:  J Leg Med       Date:  2001-03

3.  In defence of ignorance: genetic information and the right not to know.

Authors:  Graeme T Laurie
Journal:  Eur J Health Law       Date:  1999-06

4.  A philosophical and critical analysis of the European convention of bioethics.

Authors:  G Hottois
Journal:  J Med Philos       Date:  2000-04

5.  Genetic privacy: orthodoxy or oxymoron?

Authors:  A Sommerville; V English
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  Geneticization: the Cyprus paradigm.

Authors:  R Hoedemaekers; H ten Have
Journal:  J Med Philos       Date:  1998-06

7.  Privacy and disclosure in medical genetics examined in an ethics of care.

Authors:  Dorothy C Wertz; John C Fletcher
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 1.898

8.  The 'right' not to know.

Authors:  D E Ost
Journal:  J Med Philos       Date:  1984-08

Review 9.  Ignorance, information and autonomy.

Authors:  J Harris; K Keywood
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2001-09
  9 in total
  54 in total

1.  Is therapeutic non-disclosure still possible? A study on the awareness of cancer diagnosis in China.

Authors:  Dian-can Wang; Chuan-bin Guo; Xin Peng; Yan-jie Su; Fan Chen
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2010-07-14       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Prenatal whole genome sequencing: just because we can, should we?

Authors:  Greer Donley; Sara Chandros Hull; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 2.683

3.  Letting the family know: balancing ethics and effectiveness when notifying relatives about genetic testing for a familial disorder.

Authors:  G K Suthers; J Armstrong; J McCormack; D Trott
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2005-12-21       Impact factor: 6.318

Review 4.  Just a family medical history?

Authors:  Dagmar Schmitz; Urban Wiesing
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-02-04

5.  Questioning the consensus: managing carrier status results generated by newborn screening.

Authors:  Fiona Alice Miller; Jason Scott Robert; Robin Z Hayeems
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2008-12-04       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Decision-making about inherited cancer risk: exploring dimensions of genetic responsibility.

Authors:  Holly Etchegary; Fiona Miller; Sonya deLaat; Brenda Wilson; June Carroll; Mario Cappelli
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 7.  Genetic Basis for Congenital Heart Disease: Revisited: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Authors:  Mary Ella Pierpont; Martina Brueckner; Wendy K Chung; Vidu Garg; Ronald V Lacro; Amy L McGuire; Seema Mital; James R Priest; William T Pu; Amy Roberts; Stephanie M Ware; Bruce D Gelb; Mark W Russell
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 29.690

8.  Consent to epistemic interventions: a contribution to the debate on the right (not) to know.

Authors:  Niels Nijsingh
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2016-03

9.  Introducing the next generation sequencing in genomic amnio and villuos sampling. The so called "Next Generation Prenatal Diagnosis" (NGPD).

Authors:  Claudio Giorlandino; Alvaro Mesoraca; Domenico Bizzoco; Claudio Dello Russo; Antonella Cima; Gianluca Di Giacomo; Pietro Cignini; Francesco Padula; Nella Dugo; Laura D'Emidio; Cristiana Brizzi; Raffaella Raffio; Vincenzo Milite; Lucia Mangiafico; Claudio Coco; Ornella Carcioppolo; Roberto Vigna; Marialuisa Mastrandrea; Luisa Mobili
Journal:  J Prenat Med       Date:  2014 Jan-Mar

10.  The fiduciary relationship model for managing clinical genomic "incidental" findings.

Authors:  Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 1.718

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.