Negligence, Genetics and Families: A Duty to Disclose Actionable Risks

Abstract

Genetic testing can reveal information significant to patients’ relatives. This familial aspect raises an important question: should clinicians owe a duty to disclose genetic risk to patients’ blood relations? In ABC v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust and Smith and Another v University of Leicester NHS Trust, the High Court rejected claims by relatives regarding genetic information. Both cases are being appealed. The High Court’s analysis of duty was restrictive; foreseeable harm and proximity thus far receiving minimal scrutiny. A detailed analysis indicates harm and proximity are important in defining the scope of a duty. The foreseeable harm is argued as medically actionable genetic conditions. Proximity could be demonstrated by claimants establishing themselves as identifiable victims of nondisclosure that ought to be in defendants’ contemplation as so affected. It is also argued a duty is not prohibited by the policy reasons relied upon in ABC: incremental development, confidentiality, a right not to know and psychiatric harm.

Citation

(2016). Negligence, Genetics and Families: A Duty to Disclose Actionable Risks. Medical Law International, 115-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0968533216664113

• Acceptance Date: Jul 23, 2016
• Publication Date: Aug 19, 2016
• Journal: Medical Law International
• Print ISSN: 0968-5332
• Publisher: SAGE Publications
• Pages: 115-142
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0968533216664113
• Keywords: disclosure, duty, family, genetics, negligence, risks
• Publisher URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0968533216664113