Ellen Otten1, Mirjam Plantinga1, Erwin Birnie1, Marian A Verkerk2, Anneke M Lucassen3, Adelita V Ranchor4, Irene M Van Langen1. 1. Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. 1] Faculty of Medicine, Clinical Ethics and Law, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK [2] Wessex Clinical Genetic Service, Southampton, UK. 4. Department of Health Psychology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: With rapid advances in genetic technologies, new genetic information becomes available much faster today than just a few years ago. This has raised questions about whether clinicians have a duty to recontact eligible patients when new genetic information becomes available and, if such duties exist, how they might be implemented in practice. METHODS: We report the results of a systematic literature search on the ethical, legal, social (including psychological), and practical issues involved in recontacting former patients who received genetic services. We identified 1,428 articles, of which 61 are covered in this review. RESULTS: The empirical evidence available indicates that most but not all patients value being recontacted. A minority of (older) articles conclude that recontacting should be a legal duty. Most authors consider recontacting to be ethically desirable but practically unfeasible. Various solutions to overcome these practical barriers have been proposed, involving efforts of laboratories, clinicians, and patients. CONCLUSION: To advance the discussion on implementing recontacting in clinical genetics, we suggest focusing on the question of in what situations recontacting might be regarded as good standard of care. To this end, reaching a professional consensus, obtaining more extensive empirical evidence, and developing professional guidelines are important.
PURPOSE: With rapid advances in genetic technologies, new genetic information becomes available much faster today than just a few years ago. This has raised questions about whether clinicians have a duty to recontact eligible patients when new genetic information becomes available and, if such duties exist, how they might be implemented in practice. METHODS: We report the results of a systematic literature search on the ethical, legal, social (including psychological), and practical issues involved in recontacting former patients who received genetic services. We identified 1,428 articles, of which 61 are covered in this review. RESULTS: The empirical evidence available indicates that most but not all patients value being recontacted. A minority of (older) articles conclude that recontacting should be a legal duty. Most authors consider recontacting to be ethically desirable but practically unfeasible. Various solutions to overcome these practical barriers have been proposed, involving efforts of laboratories, clinicians, and patients. CONCLUSION: To advance the discussion on implementing recontacting in clinical genetics, we suggest focusing on the question of in what situations recontacting might be regarded as good standard of care. To this end, reaching a professional consensus, obtaining more extensive empirical evidence, and developing professional guidelines are important.
Authors: M Reiff; K Ross; S Mulchandani; K J Propert; R E Pyeritz; N B Spinner; B A Bernhardt Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Daniele Carrieri; Sandi Dheensa; Shane Doheny; Angus J Clarke; Peter D Turnpenny; Anneke M Lucassen; Susan E Kelly Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2017-02-08 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Fabio Sirchia; Daniele Carrieri; Sandi Dheensa; Caroline Benjamin; Hülya Kayserili; Christophe Cordier; Carla G van El; Peter D Turnpenny; Bela Melegh; Álvaro Mendes; Tanya F Halbersma-Konings; Irene M van Langen; Anneke M Lucassen; Angus J Clarke; Francesca Forzano; Susan E Kelly Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Yvonne Bombard; Kyle B Brothers; Sara Fitzgerald-Butt; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Leila Jamal; Cynthia A James; Gail P Jarvik; Jennifer B McCormick; Tanya N Nelson; Kelly E Ormond; Heidi L Rehm; Julie Richer; Emmanuelle Souzeau; Jason L Vassy; Jennifer K Wagner; Howard P Levy Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Alekhya Narravula; Kathryn B Garber; S Hussain Askree; Madhuri Hegde; Patricia L Hall Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Juliann M Savatt; Danielle R Azzariti; David H Ledbetter; Emily Palen; Heidi L Rehm; Erin Rooney Riggs; Christa Lese Martin Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 8.822