Literature DB >> 22084846

Familial communication of research results: a need to know?

Lee Black1, Kelly A McClellan.   

Abstract

Research now provides participants greater indications of genetic risk for disease, even for conditions incidental to the research study. Given this development, should such information also be disclosed to the family of research participants? There has been some indication at the national level that genetic risk information can be disclosed to participants' families; however, limited attention has been given to returning research results to family. Thus, we have also incorporated the discussion surrounding the disclosure of genetic risk discovered in the clinic (e.g., genetic testing). A number of important questions are examined: Should genetic research results be provided to family? Are there differences between clinical and research findings that would prevent research results from being disclosed to family? Who should make the disclosure, if in fact it is done at all? We conclude by noting that the return of results is increasingly accepted as technology permits the discovery of more and more medically useful data. However, debates of whether results should be returned to participants must first be settled before moving to familial disclosure.
© 2011 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22084846     DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00627.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Law Med Ethics        ISSN: 1073-1105            Impact factor:   1.718


  7 in total

1.  Preferences Regarding Return of Genomic Results to Relatives of Research Participants, Including after Participant Death: Empirical Results from a Cancer Biobank.

Authors:  Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Gloria M Petersen; Susan M Wolf; Kari G Chaffee; Marguerite E Robinson; Deborah R Gordon; Noralane M Lindor; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

Review 2.  Return of individual research results and incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2013-07-15       Impact factor: 8.929

3.  Attitudes Toward Return of Genetic Research Results to Relatives, Including After Death: Comparison of Cancer Probands, Blood Relatives, and Spouse/Partners.

Authors:  Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Susan M Wolf; Kari G Chaffee; Marguerite E Robinson; Noralane M Lindor; Deborah R Gordon; Barbara A Koenig; Gloria M Petersen
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-04-27       Impact factor: 1.742

4.  Beneficence, clinical urgency, and the return of individual research results to relatives.

Authors:  Stephanie M Fullerton; Susan Brown Trinidad; Gail P Jarvik; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 11.229

5.  Ethics in prion disease.

Authors:  Kendra Bechtel; Michael D Geschwind
Journal:  Prog Neurobiol       Date:  2013-07-29       Impact factor: 11.685

Review 6.  Points-to-consider on the return of results in epigenetic research.

Authors:  Stephanie O M Dyke; Katie M Saulnier; Charles Dupras; Amy P Webster; Karen Maschke; Mark Rothstein; Reiner Siebert; Jörn Walter; Stephan Beck; Tomi Pastinen; Yann Joly
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 11.117

7.  Attitudes of Canadian researchers toward the return to participants of incidental and targeted genomic findings obtained in a pediatric research setting.

Authors:  Conrad V Fernandez; Caron Strahlendorf; Denise Avard; Bartha M Knoppers; Colleen O'Connell; Eric Bouffet; David Malkin; Nada Jabado; Kym Boycott; Poul H Sorensen
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-01-31       Impact factor: 8.822

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.