Literature DB >> 24592828

Addressing the ethical challenges in genetic testing and sequencing of children.

Ellen Wright Clayton1, Laurence B McCullough, Leslie G Biesecker, Steven Joffe, Lainie Friedman Ross, Susan M Wolf.   

Abstract

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) recently provided two recommendations about predictive genetic testing of children. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium's Pediatrics Working Group compared these recommendations, focusing on operational and ethical issues specific to decision making for children. Content analysis of the statements addresses two issues: (1) how these recommendations characterize and analyze locus of decision making, as well as the risks and benefits of testing, and (2) whether the guidelines conflict or come to different but compatible conclusions because they consider different testing scenarios. These statements differ in ethically significant ways. AAP/ACMG analyzes risks and benefits using best interests of the child and recommends that, absent ameliorative interventions available during childhood, clinicians should generally decline to order testing. Parents authorize focused tests. ACMG analyzes risks and benefits using the interests of the child and other family members and recommends that sequencing results be examined for additional variants that can lead to ameliorative interventions, regardless of age, which laboratories should report to clinicians who should contextualize the results. Parents must accept additional analysis. The ethical arguments in these statements appear to be in tension with each other.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24592828      PMCID: PMC3950962          DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2013.879945

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Bioeth        ISSN: 1526-5161            Impact factor:   11.229


  18 in total

1.  Genetic testing in familial melanoma: uptake and implications.

Authors:  Femke A de Snoo; Samantha R Riedijk; Anneke M van Mil; Wilma Bergman; Jeanet A C ter Huurne; Reinier Timman; Wieke Bertina; Nelleke A Gruis; Hans F A Vasen; Arie van Haeringen; Martijn H Breuning; Aad Tibben
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.894

2.  Acceptance of genetic testing for hereditary breast ovarian cancer among study enrollees from an African American kindred.

Authors:  Anita Yeomans Kinney; Sara Ellis Simonsen; Bonnie Jeanne Baty; Diptasri Mandal; Susan L Neuhausen; Kate Seggar; Rich Holubkov; Ken Smith
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2006-04-15       Impact factor: 2.802

3.  Barriers to genetic testing for breast cancer risk among ethnic minority women: an exploratory study.

Authors:  Beth A Glenn; Neetu Chawla; Roshan Bastani
Journal:  Ethn Dis       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.847

4.  Avoiding risk information about breast cancer.

Authors:  Darya Melnyk; James A Shepperd
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2012-10

5.  Ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children.

Authors: 
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2013-02-21       Impact factor: 7.124

6.  Predictive genetic testing of children for adult-onset diseases and psychological harm.

Authors:  P J Malpas
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.903

7.  Points to consider: ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. American Society of Human Genetics Board of Directors, American College of Medical Genetics Board of Directors.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  Points to consider in the clinical application of genomic sequencing.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Incidental findings in clinical genomics: a clarification.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-07-04       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Technical report: Ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children.

Authors:  Lainie Friedman Ross; Laine Friedman Ross; Howard M Saal; Karen L David; Rebecca R Anderson
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-02-21       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  48 in total

1.  Return of Results from Research Using Newborn Screening Dried Blood Samples.

Authors:  Michelle Huckaby Lewis; Aaron J Goldenberg
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

2.  Disclosing Secondary Findings from Pediatric Sequencing to Families: Considering the "Benefit to Families".

Authors:  Benjamin S Wilfond; Conrad V Fernandez; Robert C Green
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

3.  Returning a Research Participant's Genomic Results to Relatives: Analysis and Recommendations.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Rebecca Branum; Barbara A Koenig; Gloria M Petersen; Susan A Berry; Laura M Beskow; Mary B Daly; Conrad V Fernandez; Robert C Green; Bonnie S LeRoy; Noralane M Lindor; P Pearl O'Rourke; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Mark A Rothstein; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

4.  Practical guidance on informed consent for pediatric participants in a biorepository.

Authors:  Kyle B Brothers; John A Lynch; Sharon A Aufox; John J Connolly; Bruce D Gelb; Ingrid A Holm; Saskia C Sanderson; Jennifer B McCormick; Janet L Williams; Wendy A Wolf; Armand H M Antommaria; Ellen W Clayton
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2014-09-26       Impact factor: 7.616

5.  Compare and contrast: a cross-national study across UK, USA and Greek experts regarding return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing.

Authors:  Elli G Gourna; Natalie Armstrong; Susan E Wallace
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  Genomic Contraindications for Heart Transplantation.

Authors:  Danton S Char; Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz; Aliessa Barnes; David Magnus; Michael J Deem; John D Lantos
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 7.  Ethical considerations in genomic testing for hematologic disorders.

Authors:  Jonathan M Marron; Steven Joffe
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2017-06-09       Impact factor: 22.113

8.  Preferences for the Return of Individual Results From Research on Pediatric Biobank Samples.

Authors:  Kurt D Christensen; Sarah K Savage; Noelle L Huntington; Elissa R Weitzman; Sonja I Ziniel; Phoebe L Bacon; Cara N Cacioppo; Robert C Green; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.742

9.  Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between.

Authors:  Gail P Jarvik; Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Kyle Brothers; Ellen W Clayton; Wendy Chung; Barbara J Evans; James P Evans; Stephanie M Fullerton; Carlos J Gallego; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Stacy W Gray; Ingrid A Holm; Iftikhar J Kullo; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Cathy McCarty; Cynthia A Prows; Heidi L Rehm; Richard R Sharp; Joseph Salama; Saskia Sanderson; Sara L Van Driest; Marc S Williams; Susan M Wolf; Wendy A Wolf; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 11.025

10.  The Influence of Adolescence on Parents' Perspectives of Testing and Discussing Inherited Cancer Predisposition.

Authors:  Corinna L Schultz; Melissa A Alderfer; Robert B Lindell; Zachary McClain; Kristin Zelley; Kim E Nichols; Carol A Ford
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-06-16       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.