Three decades of genetic privacy: a metaphoric journey.

Debates surrounding genetic privacy have taken on different forms over the past 30 years. Taking genetic privacy to mean an interest that individuals, families, or even communities have with respect to genetic information, we examine the metaphors used in these debates to chronicle the development of genetic privacy. In 1990-2000, we examine claims for ownership and of 'humanity' spurred by the launch of the Human Genome Project and related endeavors. In 2000-2010, we analyze the interface of law and ethics with research infrastructures such as biobanks, for which notions of citizenship and 'public goods' were central. In 2010-2020, we detail the relational turn of genetic privacy in response of large international research consortia and big data. Although each decade had its leading conceptions of genetic privacy, the subject is neither strictly chronological nor static. We conclude with reflections on the nature of genetic privacy and the necessity to bring together the unique and private genetic self with the human other.

Disclosing genetic information to family members without consent: Five Australian case studies.

Genetic risk information is relevant to individual patients and also their blood relatives. Health practitioners (HPs) routinely advise patients of the importance of sharing genetic information with family members, especially for clinically actionable conditions where prevention is possible. However, some patients refuse to share genetic results with at-risk relatives, and HPs must choose whether to use or disclose genetic information without consent. This requires an understanding of their legal and ethical obligations, which research shows many HPs do not have. A recent UK case held that HPs have a duty to a patient's relatives where there is a proximate relationship, to conduct a balancing exercise of the benefit of disclosure of the genetic risk information to the relative against the interest of the patient in maintaining confidentiality. In Australia, there is currently no legal duty to disclose genetic information to a patient's at-risk relatives, but there are laws and guidelines governing unconsented use/disclosure of genetic information. These laws are inconsistent across different Australian states and health contexts, requiring greater harmonisation. Here we provide an up-to-date and clinically accessible resource summarising the laws applying to HPs across Australia, and outline five Australian case studies which have arisen in clinical genetics services, regarding the disclosure of genetic results to relatives without consent. The issues addressed here are relevant to any Australian HP with access to genetic information, as well as HPs and policy-makers in other jurisdictions considering these issues.

Professional duties are now considered legal duties of care within genomic medicine.

The legal duty to protect patient confidentiality is common knowledge amongst healthcare professionals. However, what may not be widely known, is that this duty is not always absolute. In the United Kingdom, both the General Medical Council governing the practice of all doctors, as well as many other professional codes of practice recognise that, under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to break confidentiality. This arises when there is a wider duty to protect the health of others, and when the risk of non-disclosure outweighs the potential harm from breaking confidentiality. We discuss this situation specifically in relation to genomic medicine where relatives in a family may have differing views on the sharing of familial genetic information. Overruling a patient's wishes is predicated on balancing the duty of care towards the patient versus protecting their relative from serious harm. We discuss the practice implications of a pivotal legal case that concluded recently in the High Court of Justice in England and Wales, ABC v St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust & Ors. Professional guidance is already clear that genetic healthcare professionals must undertake a balancing exercise to weigh up contradictory duties of care. However, the judge has provided a new legal weighting to these professional duties: 'The scope of the duty extends not only to conducting the necessary balancing exercise but also to acting in accordance with its outcome' [1: 189]. In the context of genomic medicine, this has important consequences for clinical practice.

Communicating genetic information to family members: analysis of consent forms for diagnostic genomic sequencing.

Communicating results from genomic sequencing to family members can play an essential role allowing access to surveillance, prevention, treatment or prophylactic measures. Yet, many patients struggle with communication of these results and it is unclear to what extent this is discussed during the consent process. We conducted an online systematic search and used content analysis to explore how consent forms for genomic sequencing address communication of genetic information to family members. Our search yielded 68 consent forms from 11 countries. Although 57 forms alluded to the familial nature of results, forms varied in their discussion of the potential familial implications of results. Only 11 addressed communication of genetic information with family members, with differences in who would be responsible for this process. Several forms offered patients options regarding communication, even in countries where national guidelines and legislation allow for the disclosure of results in the absence of patient consent. These findings are concerning because they show how forms may potentially mislead patients and health care professionals about whether communication is permissible in cases where the patient does not consent. We suggest that providers and health care professionals reconsider how consent forms address communicating genetic information to family members.

Rights, interests and expectations: Indigenous perspectives on unrestricted access to genomic data.

Addressing Indigenous rights and interests in genetic resources has become increasingly challenging in an open science environment that promotes unrestricted access to genomic data. Although Indigenous experiences with genetic research have been shaped by a series of negative interactions, there is increasing recognition that equitable benefits can only be realized through greater participation of Indigenous communities. Issues of trust, accountability and equity underpin Indigenous critiques of genetic research and the sharing of genomic data. This Perspectives article highlights identified issues for Indigenous communities around the sharing of genomic data and suggests principles and actions that genomic researchers can adopt to recognize community rights and interests in data.

Review of policies of companies and databases regarding access to customers' genealogy data for law enforcement purposes.

The rapidly evolving popularity of direct-to-consumer genetic genealogy companies has made it possible to retrieve genomic information for unintended reasons by third parties, including the emerging use for law enforcement purposes. The question remains whether users of direct-to-consumer genetic genealogy companies and genealogical databases are aware that their genetic and/or genealogical data could be used as means to solving forensic cases. Our review of 22 companies' and databases' policies showed that only four companies have provided additional information on how law enforcement agencies should request permission to use their services for law enforcement purposes. Moreover, two databases have adopted a different approach by providing a special service for law enforcement. Although all companies and databases included in the study provide at least some provisions about police access, there is an ongoing debate over the ethics of these practices, and how to balance users' privacy with law enforcement requests.

El impacto del Proyecto Genoma Humano y la discriminación genética: aspectos éticos, sociales y jurídicos / The impact of the Human Genome Project and genetic discrimination: Ethical, social and legal aspects / L'impacte del Projecte Genoma Humà i la discriminació genètica: aspectes ètics, socials i jurídics

El Proyecto Genoma Humano ha significado un paso trascendental en la historia de la ciencia, especialmente en el ejercicio de la medicina y en el tratamiento del paciente. Sin embargo, este hito histórico también ha repercutido con intensidad en otras áreas de la sociedad, las cuales a la fecha han comenzado a mostrar los impactos en sus diversas esferas. Este trabajo intenta analizar el estado actual de esta nueva realidad bajo el prisma de cada uno de estos agentes mencionados, con especial énfasis en el nuevo concepto de "discriminación genética" que afecta a todo individuo en razón de la información codificada en su ADN

The Human Genome Project has meant a transcendental step in the history of science, especially in the practice of medicine and in patient's treatment. However, this historical milestone has also had an impact on other areas of society, which have begun to show the effects in their various spheres. This paper analyzes the current state of this new reality under the prism of each of these mentioned agents, with special emphasis on the new concept of "genetic discrimination" that affects every individual because of the information encoded in their DNA

El Projecte Genoma Humà ha significat un pas transcendental en la història de la ciència, especialment en l'exercici de la medicina I en el tractament del pacient. No obstant això, aquesta fita històrica també ha repercutit amb intensitat en altres àrees de la societat, les quals a la data han començat a mostrar els impactes en les seves diverses esferes. Aquest treball analitza l'estat actual d'aquesta nova realitat sota el prisma de cadascun d'aquests agents esmentats, amb especial èmfasi en el nou concepte de "discriminació genética" que afecta a tot individu en raó de la informació codificada en el seu ADN

Disclosure to genetic relatives without consent - Australian genetic professionals' awareness of the health privacy law.

BACKGROUND: When a genetic mutation is identified in a family member (proband), internationally, it is usually the proband's or another responsible family member's role to disclose the information to at-risk relatives. However, both active and passive non-disclosure in families occurs: choosing not to communicate the information or failing to communicate the information despite intention to do so, respectively. The ethical obligations to prevent harm to at-risk relatives and promote the duty of care by genetic health professionals (GHPs) is in conflict with Privacy laws and professional regulations that prohibits disclosure of information to a third party without the consent of the proband (duty of confidentiality). In New South Wales (NSW), Australia, amendments to Privacy legislation permits such disclosure to living genetic relatives with the process defined under guidelines although there is no legal duty to warn. This study assessed NSW GHP's awareness and experience of the legislation and guidelines. METHODS: An online survey collected demographics; theoretical knowledge; clinical scenarios to assess application knowledge; attitudes; confidence; experience with active non-disclosure. A link to correct answers was provided after completion. Knowledge scores above the median for non-parametric data or above the mean for parametric data were classified as 'good' or 'poor'. Chi square tests assessed associations between confidence and knowledge scores. RESULTS: While many of the 37 participants reported reading the guidelines, there was limited awareness of their scope and clinical application; that there is no legal duty to warn; and that the threat does not need to be imminent to warrant disclosure. No association between confidence and 'good' theoretical or applied clinical knowledge was identified. Uncertainty of their professional responsibility was identified and in the several case examples of active non-disclosure that were reported this uncertainty reflected the need for further understanding of the guidelines in regard to the processes required before disclosure was initiated. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for further education and training about the guidelines associated with the legislation that would be relevant to support disclosure. The findings may inform future strategies to support introduction of policy changes in other jurisdictions where similar regulatory regimes are introduced.

Do patients and research subjects have a right to receive their genomic raw data? An ethical and legal analysis.

BACKGROUND: As Next Generation Sequencing technologies are increasingly implemented in biomedical research and (translational) care, the number of study participants and patients who ask for release of their genomic raw data is set to increase. This raises the question whether research participants and patients have a legal and moral right to receive their genomic raw data and, if so, how this right should be implemented into practice. METHODS: In a first step we clarify some central concepts such as "raw data"; in a second step we sketch the international legal framework. The third step provides an extensive ethical analysis which comprehends two parts: an evaluation of whether there is a prima facie moral right to receive one's raw data, and a contextualization and discussion of the right in light of potentially conflicting interests and rights of the data subject herself and third parties; in a last fourth step we emphasize the main practical consequences of the ethical analyses and propose recommendations for the release of raw data. RESULTS: In several legislations like the new European General Data Protection Regulation, patients do in principle have the right to receive their raw data. However, the procedural implementation of this right and whether it involves genetic counselling is at the discretion of the Member States. Even more questions remain with respect to the research context. The ethical analysis suggests that patients and research subjects have a moral right to receive their genomic raw data and addresses aspects which are also of relevance for the legal discussion such as the costs of release of raw data and its impact on academic freedom. CONCLUSION: Taking into account the specific nature and implications of genomic raw data and the contexts of research and health care, several concerns and potentially conflicting interests of the data subjects themselves and involved researchers, physicians, biomedical institutions and relatives arise. Instead of using them to argue in favor of restrictions of the data subjects' legal and moral right to genomic raw data, the concerns should be addressed through provision of information and other measures. To this end, we propose relevant recommendations.

Rethinking the ethical principles of genomic medicine services.

Clinical genome and exome sequencing is currently used in only a small fraction of patients, yet large scale genomic initiatives are becoming more embedded in clinical services. This paper examines the ethical principles that should guide regulatory processes regarding consent and data sharing in this context. We argue that a genomic dataset administered by the health system carries substantial societal benefits, and that the collective nature of this initiative means that at least those patients who benefit from genome sequencing have an ethical obligation to share their health information. This obligation is grounded in considerations of fairness. Furthermore, we argue that the use of genomic data for the advancement of medical knowledge should be permitted without explicit consent and that international and other bodies should be granted access to these data, provided certain conditions are satisfied.

Stakeholders' perspectives on the post-mortem use of genetic and health-related data for research: a systematic review.

The majority of biobank policies and consent forms do not address post-mortem use of data for medical research, thus causing uncertainty after research participants' death. This systematic review identifies studies examining stakeholders' perspectives on this issue. We conducted a search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science. Findings were categorised in two themes: (1) views on the use of data for medical research after participants' death, and (2) perspectives regarding the post-mortem return of individual genetic research results. An important subtheme was the appropriate authority and degree of control over posthumous use of data. The sixteen included studies all focused on genetic data and used quantitative and qualitative methods to survey perspectives of research participants, family members, researchers and Institutional Review Board members. Acceptability of post-mortem use of data for medical research was high among research participants and their relatives. Most stakeholders thought participants should be informed about post-mortem research uses during initial consent. Between lay persons and professionals, disagreement exists about whether relatives should receive actionable genetic findings, and whether the deceased's previous preferences can be overridden. We conclude that regulations and ethical guidance should leave room for post-mortem use of personal data for research, provided that informed consent procedures are transparent on this issue, including the return of individual research findings to relatives. Future research is needed to explore underlying causes for differences in views, as well as ethical and legal issues on the appropriate level of control by deceased research participants (while alive) and their relatives.

Attitudes Toward Psychiatric Genetic Testing and Research: A Comparative Study Between Denmark and Cuba.

Introduction: Psychiatric genetic research has seen progress in identifying genetic risk variants associated with major mental disorders. Testing with preventive purposes is likely to be offered to high-risk individuals in the near future. It is important that genetic testing and counseling align with the interests of the patients, and these interests are likely to vary among countries and cultures. Aim: The present study aimed to compare the attitudes toward psychiatric genetic research and genetic testing in Denmark and Cuba. Materials and Methods: A survey, culturally adapted for each country, was administered to a pool of students, patients with depression, and the closest relatives of these patients. A total of 491 stakeholders from Denmark and 720 from Cuba were included in the study. Results: Significant differences between the two populations were found for general knowledge about psychiatric genetic research, whom to offer genetic testing, and to whom to entrust with psychiatric genetic information. Cuban stakeholders were more likely to feel uncomfortable about psychiatric genetic research than the Danish stakeholders. This difference might be driven by the characteristics of the health systems, sociocultural factors, and lower genetic literacy in the Cuban population. Conclusion: This study is the first to compare attitudes toward psychiatric genetic testing between a Latin American country and a Nordic country. The results reported could be valuable when designing general guidelines for psychiatric genetic testing in the future.