Revealing misattributed parentage through the integration of genetic information into the electronic health record.

The integration of genetic information (GI) into the electronic health record (EHR) seems inevitable as the mainstreaming of genomics continues. Such newly provided accessibility to GI could be beneficial for improving health care, as well as for supporting clinical decision-making and health management. Notwithstanding these promising benefits, the automatic integration of GI into the EHR, allowing unrestricted access to one's GI through patient portals, carries various knowledge-related risks for patients. This article is focused on the potential case of inadvertently revealing misattributed parentage through such practice. The article aims to identify key clinical and ethical implications of such revelation for adult patients. Clinical implications include, for example, altering the physician-patient interaction and the need to enhance physician's genetic literacy to improve genetic-information-specific communication skills. Ethical implications yield arguments supporting disclosure of MP, such as autonomy, individuals' right to know medical information pertaining to them, and the right to know one's genetic origins. Arguments opposing disclosure of MP centre on the right not to know GI and concerns for post-disclosure family relationships. Following the clinical and ethical analyses of these respective implications, we consider how such integration of GI into the EHR ought to be carried out, ethically. We therefore suggest a solution, featuring an autonomy-based approach, built around EHR users' right not to know. Our solution of nuanced consent options (including a 'genetic ignorance option') is designed to enable patients' informed exposure to GI through the EHR, allowing them some control over their self- and familial narrative.

The right not to know: Non-disclosure of primary genetic test results and genetic counselors' response.

As part of clinical genetic counseling practice, patients may request that their primary genetic test results be disclosed to someone else, such as a relative or referring provider, or request that results be disclosed to no one (non-disclosure). In making these requests, patients employ the ethical principle of the "right not to know," which argues that autonomous individuals can choose not to know relevant health information. Although the right not to know has been well-studied in medicine in general, and in the return of genomic secondary findings, we are not aware of other studies that have explored the return of primary genetic test results when patients request non-disclosure or disclosure to another individual. This study aimed to describe common clinical scenarios in which these requests occur, how genetic counselors respond, and what ethical considerations they employ in their decision-making process. We recruited participants from the National Society of Genetic Counselors' (NSGC) "Student Research Surveys and Reminders" listserv and conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 genetic counselors in the United States who described genetic counseling cases where this occurred. Interviews were transcribed and coded inductively, and themes were identified. Case details varied, but in our study data the requests for non-disclosure were most commonly made by patients with poor, often oncologic, prognoses who requested their test results be disclosed to a family member instead of themselves. Genetic counselors considered similar factors in deciding how to respond to these requests: patient autonomy, medical actionability of results for the patient and family, the relationship between the patient and the person to whom results might be disclosed, and legal or practical concerns. Genetic counselors often made decisions on a case-by-case basis, depending on how relevant each of these factors were. This study adds to the growing body of literature regarding patients' "right not to know" and will hopefully provide guidance for genetic counselors who experience this situation in clinical practice.

The Right Not to Know: some Steps towards a Compromise.

There is an ongoing debate in medicine about whether patients have a 'right not to know' pertinent medical information, such as diagnoses of life-altering diseases. While this debate has employed various ethical concepts, probably the most widely-used by both defenders and detractors of the right is autonomy. Whereas defenders of the right not to know typically employ a 'liberty' conception of autonomy, according to which to be autonomous involves doing what one wants to do, opponents of the right not to know often employ a 'duty' understanding, viewing autonomy as involving an obligation to be self-governing. The central contribution of this paper is in showing that neither view of autonomy can reasonably be said to support the extreme stances on the right not to know that they are sometimes taken to. That is, neither can a liberty view properly defend a right not to know without limits, nor can a duty view form the basis of an absolute rejection of the right not to know. While there is still theoretical distance between these two approaches, we conclude that the views are considerably closer on this issue than they first appear, opening the way for a possible compromise.

From a Right to a Preference: Rethinking the Right to Genomic Ignorance.

The "right not to know" has generated significant discussion, especially regarding genetic information. In this paper, I argue that this purported right is better understood as a preference and that treating it as a substantive right has led to confusion. To support this claim, I present three critiques of the way the right not to know has been characterized. First, I demonstrate that the many conceptualizations of this right have hampered debate. Second, I show that the way autonomy is conceptualized in this literature is also problematic. Third, I examine the notion of a right in more detail, to support my third critique: that the right to know and the right not to know genetic information are often erroneously treated as having equivalent status. On my understanding, the claim being made is better thought of as a preference, not a right, and a preference not to know certain information becomes only one of several considerations relevant to medical decision making.

Stigmatization of Not-Knowing as a Public Health Tool.

Predictive interventions and practices are becoming a defining feature of medicine. The author points out that according to the inner logic and external supporters (i.e., state, industry, and media) of modern medicine, participating in healthcare increasingly means participating in knowing, sharing, and using of predictive information. At the same time, the author addresses the issue that predictive information may also have problematic side effects like overdiagnosis, health-related anxiety, and worry as well as impacts on personal life plans. The question is raised: Should we resort to stigmatization if doing so would increase participation in predictive interventions, and thereby save healthcare costs and reduce morbidity and premature death? The paper concludes that even if such a strategy cannot be ruled out in some forms and contexts, we ought to be very cautious about the dangers of shame and stigmatization.

A look into the future? Patients' and health care staff's perception and evaluation of genetic information and the right not to know.

The progress of medical genetics leads to a significant increase in genetic knowledge and a vast expansion of genetic diagnostics. However, it is still unknown how these changes will be integrated into medical practice and how they will change patients' and healthy persons' perception and evaluation of genetic diagnoses and genetic knowledge. Therefore, we carried out a comprehensive questionnaire survey with more than 500 patients, clients seeking genetic counseling, health care staff, and healthy persons (N = 523). The questionnaire survey covered detailed questions on the value of genetic diagnoses for the different groups of study participants, the right to know or not to know genetic diagnoses, possible differences between genetic and other medical diagnoses, and the practical use and implications of genetic knowledge with a special focus on hereditary neuropsychiatric diseases. A huge majority of the participants (90.7%) stated to have a right to learn every aspect of her or his genetic make-up. Similarly, study participants showed high interest (81.8%) in incidental health care findings-independent of whether the diseases are treatable or not. One can derive from the data outcome that study participants did not follow the implications of a "genetic exceptionalism" and often considered genetic findings as equivalent in relation to other medical diagnoses.

The Ethics of General Population Preventive Genomic Sequencing: Rights and Social Justice.

Advances in DNA sequencing technology open new possibilities for public health genomics, especially in the form of general population preventive genomic sequencing (PGS). Such screening programs would sit at the intersection of public health and preventive health care, and thereby at once invite and resist the use of clinical ethics and public health ethics frameworks. Despite their differences, these ethics frameworks traditionally share a central concern for individual rights. We examine two putative individual rights-the right not to know, and the child's right to an open future-frequently invoked in discussions of predictive genetic testing, in order to explore their potential contribution to evaluating this new practice. Ultimately, we conclude that traditional clinical and public health ethics frameworks, and these two rights in particular, should be complemented by a social justice perspective in order adequately to characterize the ethical dimensions of general population PGS programs.

What can we Learn from Patients' Ethical Thinking about the right 'not to know' in Genomics? Lessons from Cancer Genetic Testing for Genetic Counselling.

This article is based on a qualitative empirical project about a distinct kinship group who were among the first identified internationally as having a genetic susceptibility to cancer (Lynch Syndrome). 50 were invited to participate (42 were tested; eight declined genetic testing). 15, who had all accepted testing, were interviewed. They form a unique case study. This study aimed to explore interviewees' experiences of genetic testing and how these influenced their family relationships. A key finding was that participants framed the decision to be tested as 'common sense'; the idea of choice around the decision was negated and replaced by a moral imperative to be tested. Those who did not follow 'common sense' were judged to be imprudent. Family members who declined testing were discussed negatively by participants. The article addresses what is ethically problematic about how test decliners were discussed and whether these ethical concerns extend to others who are offered genetic testing. Discussions showed that genetic testing was viewed as both an autonomous choice and a responsibility. Yet the apparent conflict between the right to autonomy and the moral imperative of responsibility allowed participants to defend test decliners' decisions by expressing a preference for or defending choice over responsibility. The 'right not to know' seemed an important moral construct to help ethically manage unpopular decisions made by close family who declined testing. In light of this research, the erosion of the 'right not to know' in the genomic age could have subtle yet profound consequences for family relationships.

Consent to epistemic interventions: a contribution to the debate on the right (not) to know.

The debate on the 'right (not) to know' has simmered on for over 30 years. New examples where a right to be informed is contrasted to a right to be kept in ignorance occasionally surface and spark disagreement on the extent to which patients and research subjects have a right to be self-determining concerning the health related information they receive. Up until now, however, this debate has been unsatisfactory with regard to the question what type of rights-if any-are in play here and to what extent they can provide a normative basis for informed consent. This paper provides an analysis of informed consent in the context of 'epistemic interventions': interventions which involve the communication of (health-related) information. First, I offer an analysis of the concept of a 'right not to know' in the context of consent to epistemic interventions. I argue that the scope of the consent is determined by the extent to which this intervention can be seen as an infringement of the private sphere. After that I show how this analysis affects the scope and standards of informed consent.

A RaDiCAL gene hunt.

In the past several years, rare disease consortia have embarked on the discovery of disease-causing genes for Mendelian diseases using next generation sequencing approaches. Despite the success of these large-scale initiatives, many diseases still have no identified genetic cause. The Rare Disease Collaboration for Autosomal Loci (RaDiCAL) studies the rarest diseases, where occasionally only a single proband is available to identify putative disease-causing genes. This article reviews how "RaDiCAL" addressed some of the challenges in generating informed consent documents for international participants and considers the emerging topic of the "right not to know" in study design.

The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know Revisited: Part One.

Prompted by developments in human genetics, a recurrent bioethical question concerns a person's 'right to know' and 'right not to know' about genetic information held that is intrinsically related to or linked to them. In this paper, we will revisit the claimed rights in relation to two particular test cases. One concerns the rights of the 500,000 participants in UK Biobank (UKB) whose biosamples, already having been genotyped, will now be exome sequenced, and the other concerns the rights of pregnant women (and their children) who undergo non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)-a simple blood test that can reveal genetic information about both a foetus and its mother. This two-part paper is in four principal sections. First, we sketch the relevant features of our two test cases. Secondly, we consider the significance of recent legal jurisprudence in the UK and Singapore. Thirdly, we consider how, the jurisprudence apart, the claimed rights might be grounded. Fourthly, we consider the limits on the rights. We conclude with some short remarks about the kind of genetically aware society that we might want to be and how far there is still an opportunity meaningfully to debate the claimed rights.

Research Progress on the Notice of Informed Consent Ethical Review Involved Gene Information Detection / 中国医学伦理学

Objective:To summarize the notice of informed consent about gene information detection,and to provide a reference for ethical review of informed consent in clinical research involved gene information detection.Methods:We researched domestic and foreign literatures about gene information detection involved informed consent and comprehensively analyzed them.Results:Gene information detection caused the individual,family,and social aspects of privacy issues,and the right not to know gene information detection had been widely recognized.Informed consent was adopted in informed consent,which not only was respect for personal dignity and autonomy,but also was conducive to the effective use of gene resources.It should construct reasonable procedural system in le gal protection,guarantee the voluntary and authenticity of consent,and put it into practice.Based on the establishment of the right not to know,the Chinese law should also prohibit the implementation of gene detection or provision of gene information put forward by employers and insurance companies.In addition,it is strictly prohibited to detect infant incurable disease genes.Conclusion:In the ethical review of clinical research,when the conflict arises,it is necessary to design informed consent to resolve the conflict between the individuals' rights not to know and their personal health benefits,and to establish reasonable procedures in legislation to ensure the implementation of informed consent.