Brent M Kious1,2, Anna R Docherty3,4, Jeffrey R Botkin5,6,7, Teneille R Brown5,7,8, Leslie P Francis5,7,8, Douglas D Gray3,6,9, Brooks R Keeshin3,6, Louisa A Stark10,11, Brieanne Witte11, Hilary Coon3,4. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. brent.kious@hsc.utah.edu. 2. Program in Medical Ethics and Humanities, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. brent.kious@hsc.utah.edu. 3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 4. Interdisciplinary Program in Neuroscience, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 5. Program in Medical Ethics and Humanities, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 6. Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 7. Utah Center for Excellence in ELSI Research, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 8. S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 9. Salt Lake City Veterans Administration MIRECC VISN 19, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 10. Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 11. Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Death from suicide has an estimated heritability of ~50%. Research may soon allow calculation of polygenic risk scores (PRS) for suicide death, which could be marketed directly to consumers. This raises ethical concerns. Understanding how consumers will utilize this information is urgent. METHODS: We conducted three focus groups involving suicide attempt survivors ("survivors") and family members of suicide decedents ("family members") to gauge their reactions to this technology. Questions focused on positive and negative implications of PRS results. Qualitative research methods were used to summarize studio results. RESULTS: Eight survivors and 13 family members participated. Both groups postulated benefits of suicide PRS, including prevention and reduced stigma. Their concerns ranged from increased stigma to adverse psychological effects. They suggested that suicide PRS should be accompanied by extensive education and counseling. Participants experienced no adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Many ethical, legal, and social implications of genetic testing for suicide risk are highly salient to community stakeholders. Our participants hoped that suicide PRS could have significant individual and community-level benefits, but had concerns about effects in several domains, including stigma, access to insurance and employment, and increased anxiety and depression.
PURPOSE: Death from suicide has an estimated heritability of ~50%. Research may soon allow calculation of polygenic risk scores (PRS) for suicide death, which could be marketed directly to consumers. This raises ethical concerns. Understanding how consumers will utilize this information is urgent. METHODS: We conducted three focus groups involving suicide attempt survivors ("survivors") and family members of suicide decedents ("family members") to gauge their reactions to this technology. Questions focused on positive and negative implications of PRS results. Qualitative research methods were used to summarize studio results. RESULTS: Eight survivors and 13 family members participated. Both groups postulated benefits of suicide PRS, including prevention and reduced stigma. Their concerns ranged from increased stigma to adverse psychological effects. They suggested that suicide PRS should be accompanied by extensive education and counseling. Participants experienced no adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Many ethical, legal, and social implications of genetic testing for suicide risk are highly salient to community stakeholders. Our participants hoped that suicide PRS could have significant individual and community-level benefits, but had concerns about effects in several domains, including stigma, access to insurance and employment, and increased anxiety and depression.
Authors: Hilary Coon; Andrey Shabalin; Amanda V Bakian; Emily DiBlasi; Eric T Monson; Anne Kirby; Danli Chen; Alison Fraser; Zhe Yu; Michael Staley; William Brandon Callor; Erik D Christensen; Sheila E Crowell; Douglas Gray; David K Crockett; Qingqin S Li; Brooks Keeshin; Anna R Docherty Journal: Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 3.358