Abstract
Abstract
Background
Whether and how to disclose genomic findings obtained in the course of genomic clinical practice and medical research has been a controversial global bioethical issue over the past two decades. Although several recommendations and judgment tools for the disclosure of genomic findings have been proposed, none are sufficiently systematic or inclusive or even consistent with each other. In order to approach the disclosure/non-disclosure practice in an ethical manner, optimal and easy-to-use tools for supporting the judgment of physicians/researchers in genomic medicine are necessary.
Methods
The bioethics literature on this topic was analyzed to parse and deconstruct the somewhat overlapping and therefore ill-defined key concepts of genomic findings, such as incidental, primary, secondary, and other findings. Based on the deconstruction and conceptual analyses of these findings, we then defined key parameters from which to identify the strength of duty to disclose (SDD) for a genomic finding. These analyses were then applied to develop a framework with the SDD matrix and systematic decision-making pathways for the disclosure of genomic findings.
Results
The following six major parameters (axes), along with sub-axes, were identified: Axis 1 (settings and institutions where findings emerge); Axis 2 (presence or absence of intention and anticipatability in discovery); Axis 3 (maximal actionability at the time of discovery); Axis 4 (net medical importance); Axis 5 (expertise of treating physician/researcher); and Axis 6 (preferences of individual patients/research subjects for disclosure). For Axes 1 to 4, a colored SDD matrix for genomic findings was developed in which levels of obligation for disclosing a finding can be categorized. For Axes 5 and 6, systematic decision-making pathways were developed via the SDD matrix.
Conclusion
We analyzed the SDD of genomic findings and developed subsequent systematic decision-making pathways of whether and how to disclose genomic findings to patients/research subjects and their relatives in an ethical manner. Our comprehensive framework may help physicians and researchers in genomic medicine make consistent ethical judgments regarding the disclosure of genomic findings.
Funder
The Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Labour, Japan
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Health (social science),Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Reference67 articles.
1. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC). Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance, Vol 1. Rockville, MD: NBAC; 1999.
2. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, Kalia SS, Korf BR, Martin CL, et al. ACMG Recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013;15(7):565–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.73.
3. Souzeau E, Burdon KP, Mackey DA, Hewitt AW, Savarirayan R, Otlowski M, et al. Ethical considerations for the return of incidental findings in ophthalmic genomic research. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2016;5(1):3. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.5.1.3.
4. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (PCSBI). ANTICIPATE and COMMUNICATE – Ethical management of incidental and secondary findings in the clinical, research, and direct-to-consumer contexts. Washington, DC: PCSBI. 2013.
5. Australian Government, National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, Universities Australia. National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. 2007 (Updated 2018). https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/file/9131/download?token=4Qw7LMvh. Accessed 20 Aug 2021.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献