Consent and Autonomy in the Genomics Era.

IF 1.4 Q4 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Current genetic medicine reports Pub Date : 2019-01-01 Epub Date: 2019-05-02 DOI:10.1007/s40142-019-00164-9
Rachel Horton, Anneke Lucassen
{"title":"Consent and Autonomy in the Genomics Era.","authors":"Rachel Horton,&nbsp;Anneke Lucassen","doi":"10.1007/s40142-019-00164-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Genomic tests offer increased opportunity for diagnosis, but their outputs are often uncertain and complex; results may need to be revised and/or may not be relevant until some future time. We discuss the challenges that this presents for consent and autonomy.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Popular discourse around genomic testing tends to be strongly deterministic and optimistic, yet many findings from genomic tests are uncertain or unclear. Clinical conversations need to anticipate and potentially challenge unrealistic expectations of what a genomic test can deliver in order to enhance autonomy and ensure that consent to genomic testing is valid.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>We conclude that 'fully informed' consent is often not possible in the context of genomic testing, but that an open-ended approach is appropriate. We consider that such broad consent can only work if located within systems or organisations that are trustworthy and that have measures in place to ensure that such open-ended agreements are not abused. We suggest that a relational concept of autonomy has benefits in encouraging focus on the networks and relationships that allow decision making to flourish.</p>","PeriodicalId":72731,"journal":{"name":"Current genetic medicine reports","volume":"7 2","pages":"85-91"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s40142-019-00164-9","citationCount":"29","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current genetic medicine reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40142-019-00164-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/5/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29

Abstract

Purpose of review: Genomic tests offer increased opportunity for diagnosis, but their outputs are often uncertain and complex; results may need to be revised and/or may not be relevant until some future time. We discuss the challenges that this presents for consent and autonomy.

Recent findings: Popular discourse around genomic testing tends to be strongly deterministic and optimistic, yet many findings from genomic tests are uncertain or unclear. Clinical conversations need to anticipate and potentially challenge unrealistic expectations of what a genomic test can deliver in order to enhance autonomy and ensure that consent to genomic testing is valid.

Summary: We conclude that 'fully informed' consent is often not possible in the context of genomic testing, but that an open-ended approach is appropriate. We consider that such broad consent can only work if located within systems or organisations that are trustworthy and that have measures in place to ensure that such open-ended agreements are not abused. We suggest that a relational concept of autonomy has benefits in encouraging focus on the networks and relationships that allow decision making to flourish.

基因组学时代的同意与自主。
综述目的:基因组检测提供了更多的诊断机会,但其结果往往不确定且复杂;结果可能需要修改和/或可能直到未来某个时间才相关。我们讨论了这对同意和自主提出的挑战。最近的发现:关于基因组测试的流行言论往往具有强烈的确定性和乐观性,但基因组测试的许多发现是不确定或不清楚的。临床对话需要预测并可能挑战对基因组检测结果的不切实际的期望,以增强自主性并确保对基因组检测的同意是有效的。总结:我们得出的结论是,在基因组检测的背景下,“完全知情”的同意通常是不可能的,但开放式的方法是合适的。我们认为,只有在可信的系统或组织内,并采取措施确保此类开放式协议不被滥用,这种广泛的同意才能发挥作用。我们认为,自主的关系概念有利于鼓励人们关注网络和关系,使决策蓬勃发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信