From proband to provider: is there an obligation to inform genetic relatives of actionable risks discovered through direct-to-consumer genetic testing?
Direct-to-consumer genetic testing is a growing phenomenon, fuelled by the notion that knowledge equals control. One ethical question that arises concerns the proband's duty to share information indicating genetic risks in their relatives. However, such duties are unenforceable and may result in the realisation of anticipated harm to relatives. We argue for a shift in responsibility from proband to provider, placing a duty on test providers in the event of identified actionable risks to relatives. Starting from Parker and Lucassen's (2004) 'joint account model', we adapt Kilbride's (2018) application of the rule of rescue and balance it against the relative's right not to know, placing responsibility on the providers of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Where the risk of disease to a relative is actionable, we argue providers ought to share results even in the face of the proband's objections. Confidentiality issues are navigated by a pre-emptive consent model, whereby consumers agree to the sharing of certain information with their relatives ahead of testing and as a condition of testing. When a relative is informed, the proband's privacy is protected by maximal deidentification, and the rights of the relative are met by a stepwise approach to informing that allows them to decide how much information they receive.
|Acceptance Date||Nov 16, 2020|
|Publication Date||Dec 9, 2020|
|Journal||Journal of Medical Ethics|
|Publisher||BMJ Publishing Group|
|Pages||205 - 212|
You might also like
Improvidence, Precaution, and the Logical-Empirical Disconnect in UK Health Policy.
"Harmful" Choices and Subjectivity: Against an Externalist Approach to Capacity Assessments.