Intensive Care Clinicians’ Perspectives on Ethical Challenges Raised by Rapid Genomic Testing in Critically Ill Infants

Author:

Poogoda Sachini1ORCID,Lynch Fiona2ORCID,Stark Zornitza123ORCID,Wilkinson Dominic4,Savulescu Julian245,Vears Danya126ORCID,Gyngell Christopher12

Affiliation:

1. Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia

2. Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia

3. Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia

4. Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 1PT, UK

5. Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore 119077, Singapore

6. Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium

Abstract

Rapid genomic testing (rGT) enables genomic information to be available in a matter of hours, allowing it to be used in time-critical settings, such as intensive care units. Although rGT has been shown to improve diagnostic rates in a cost-effective manner, it raises ethical questions around a range of different areas, including obtaining consent and clinical decision-making. While some research has examined the perspectives of parents and genetics health professionals, the attitudes of intensive care clinicians remain under-explored. To address this gap, we administered an online survey to English-speaking neonatal/paediatric intensivists in Europe, Australasia and North America. We posed two ethical scenarios: one relating to obtaining consent from the parents and the second assessing decision-making regarding the provision of life-sustaining treatments. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. We received 40 responses from 12 countries. About 50–75% of intensivists felt that explicit parental consent was necessary for rGT. About 68–95% felt that a diagnosis from rGT should affect the provision of life-sustaining care. Results were mediated by intensivists’ level of experience. Our findings show divergent attitudes toward ethical issues generated by rGT among intensivists and suggest the need for guidance regarding ethical decision-making for rGT.

Funder

Wellcome Trust

Australian Government through the Medical Research Future Fund, as part of the Genomics Health Futures Mission

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3