在患者同意的情况下,接触具有医学上可操作的遗传易感性的患者的高危亲属的隐私含义:一个假设的澳大利亚案例研究。

IF 2.7 Q3 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
BioTech Pub Date : 2023-06-02 DOI:10.3390/biotech12020045
Jane Tiller, Kristen Nowak, Tiffany Boughtwood, Margaret Otlowski
{"title":"在患者同意的情况下,接触具有医学上可操作的遗传易感性的患者的高危亲属的隐私含义:一个假设的澳大利亚案例研究。","authors":"Jane Tiller,&nbsp;Kristen Nowak,&nbsp;Tiffany Boughtwood,&nbsp;Margaret Otlowski","doi":"10.3390/biotech12020045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Genetic risk information has relevance for patients' blood relatives. However, cascade testing uptake in at-risk families is <50%. International research supports direct notification of at-risk relatives by health professionals (HPs), with patient consent. However, HPs express concerns about the privacy implications of this practice. Our privacy analysis, grounded in a clinically relevant hypothetical scenario, considers the types of personal information involved in direct notification of at-risk relatives and the application of Australian privacy regulations. It finds that collecting relatives' contact details, and using those details (with patient consent) to notify relatives of possible genetic risk, does not breach Australian privacy law, providing that HPs adhere to regulatory requirements. It finds the purported \"right to know\" does not prevent disclosure of genetic information to at-risk relatives. Finally, the analysis confirms that the discretion available to HPs does not equate to a positive duty to warn at-risk relatives. Thus, direct notification of a patient's at-risk relatives regarding medically actionable genetic information, with patient consent, is not a breach of Australian privacy regulations, providing it is conducted in accordance with the applicable principles set out. Clinical services should consider offering this service to patients where appropriate. National guidelines would assist with the clarification of the discretion for HPs.</p>","PeriodicalId":34490,"journal":{"name":"BioTech","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10296322/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Privacy Implications of Contacting the At-Risk Relatives of Patients with Medically Actionable Genetic Predisposition, with Patient Consent: A Hypothetical Australian Case Study.\",\"authors\":\"Jane Tiller,&nbsp;Kristen Nowak,&nbsp;Tiffany Boughtwood,&nbsp;Margaret Otlowski\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/biotech12020045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Genetic risk information has relevance for patients' blood relatives. However, cascade testing uptake in at-risk families is <50%. International research supports direct notification of at-risk relatives by health professionals (HPs), with patient consent. However, HPs express concerns about the privacy implications of this practice. Our privacy analysis, grounded in a clinically relevant hypothetical scenario, considers the types of personal information involved in direct notification of at-risk relatives and the application of Australian privacy regulations. It finds that collecting relatives' contact details, and using those details (with patient consent) to notify relatives of possible genetic risk, does not breach Australian privacy law, providing that HPs adhere to regulatory requirements. It finds the purported \\\"right to know\\\" does not prevent disclosure of genetic information to at-risk relatives. Finally, the analysis confirms that the discretion available to HPs does not equate to a positive duty to warn at-risk relatives. Thus, direct notification of a patient's at-risk relatives regarding medically actionable genetic information, with patient consent, is not a breach of Australian privacy regulations, providing it is conducted in accordance with the applicable principles set out. Clinical services should consider offering this service to patients where appropriate. National guidelines would assist with the clarification of the discretion for HPs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34490,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BioTech\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10296322/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BioTech\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/biotech12020045\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BioTech","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/biotech12020045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

遗传风险信息与患者血亲有相关性。然而,在高危家庭中,级联测试的吸收是
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Privacy Implications of Contacting the At-Risk Relatives of Patients with Medically Actionable Genetic Predisposition, with Patient Consent: A Hypothetical Australian Case Study.

Privacy Implications of Contacting the At-Risk Relatives of Patients with Medically Actionable Genetic Predisposition, with Patient Consent: A Hypothetical Australian Case Study.

Privacy Implications of Contacting the At-Risk Relatives of Patients with Medically Actionable Genetic Predisposition, with Patient Consent: A Hypothetical Australian Case Study.

Genetic risk information has relevance for patients' blood relatives. However, cascade testing uptake in at-risk families is <50%. International research supports direct notification of at-risk relatives by health professionals (HPs), with patient consent. However, HPs express concerns about the privacy implications of this practice. Our privacy analysis, grounded in a clinically relevant hypothetical scenario, considers the types of personal information involved in direct notification of at-risk relatives and the application of Australian privacy regulations. It finds that collecting relatives' contact details, and using those details (with patient consent) to notify relatives of possible genetic risk, does not breach Australian privacy law, providing that HPs adhere to regulatory requirements. It finds the purported "right to know" does not prevent disclosure of genetic information to at-risk relatives. Finally, the analysis confirms that the discretion available to HPs does not equate to a positive duty to warn at-risk relatives. Thus, direct notification of a patient's at-risk relatives regarding medically actionable genetic information, with patient consent, is not a breach of Australian privacy regulations, providing it is conducted in accordance with the applicable principles set out. Clinical services should consider offering this service to patients where appropriate. National guidelines would assist with the clarification of the discretion for HPs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BioTech
BioTech Immunology and Microbiology-Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
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