Top

Published in:

01-06-2010 | Original Article

Public Perceptions of Ethical Issues Regarding Adult Predictive Genetic Testing

Authors: Douglas K. Martin, Heather L. Greenwood, Jeff Nisker

Published in: Health Care Analysis | Issue 2/2010

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the views of members of the general public regarding ethical issues in adult predictive genetic testing. The literature pertaining to ethical issues regarding to adult predictive genetic testing is largely restricted to the views of ‘experts’ who have emphasized informed consent, patent issues, and insurance discrimination. Occasionally the views of patients who have undergone genetic counselling and testing have been elicited, adding psychosocial and family issues. However, the general public has not had the opportunity to contribute. In order to explore theatre as a health policy research tool, 1,200 audience members attended the play ‘Sarah’s Daughters’ in seven Canadian cities, following which audience discussions were audiotaped. This study performed a secondary qualitative analysis of the data to identify the ethical issues of adult predictive genetic testing important to members of the general public. The identified issues were: (1) need for public education; (2) choice to undergo genetic counselling and testing; (3) access to genetic counselling and testing; and (4) obligations regarding the handling of genetic information. Audience members emphasized public education and access to information regarding potential choices, which was different from the emphasis on informed consent and other ethical issues prominent in the literature. Members of the general public emphasized ethical issues that were different than those identified by experts and patients. It is essential that members of the public be included in complex and controversial public policy decisions.

Beckman, L. (2004). Are genetic self-tests dangerous? Assessing the commercialization of genetic testing in terms of personal autonomy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 25(5–6), 387–398. doi:10.1007/s11017-004-2047-z.PubMed

Brandt-Rauf, P. W., & Brandt-Rauf, S. I. (2004). Genetic testing in the workplace: Ethical, legal, and social implications. Annual Review of Public Health, 25, 139. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.101802.123012.CrossRefPubMed

Bruni, R., Laupacis, A., & Martin, D. K. (2008). The value of public engagement in priority setting. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 179(1), 15–18. doi:10.1503/cmaj.071656.CrossRefPubMed

Caulfield, T. (1999). Gene testing in the biotech century: Are physicians ready? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161(9), 1122–1124.PubMed

Caulfield, T. A., Burgess, M. M., & Williams-Jones, B. (2001). Providing genetic testing through the private sector: A view from Canada. ISUMA: Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2, 72–81.

Charles, C., & DeMaio, S. (1993). Lay participation in health care decision making: A conceptual framework. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 18, 881–904. doi:10.1215/03616878-18-4-881.CrossRefPubMed

Clayton, E. W. (2003). Ethical, legal, and social implications of genomic medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine, 349(6), 562–569. doi:10.1056/NEJMra012577.CrossRefPubMed

Cleary, P. D., & Edgman-Levitan, S. (1997). Health care quality: Incorporating consumer perspectives. American Medical Association Journal, 278, 1608–1612. doi:10.1001/jama.278.19.1608.CrossRef

Daniels, N. (2000). Accountability for reasonableness. British Medical Journal, 321, 1300–1301. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1300.CrossRefPubMed

10.

de Vries-Kragt, K. (1998). The dilemmas of a carrier of BRCA1 gene mutations. Patient Education and Counseling, 35, 75–80. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(98)00085-8.CrossRefPubMed

11.

de Wert, G. (1998). Ethics of predictive DNA-testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Patient Education and Counseling, 35, 43–52. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(98)00082-2.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Dugan, R. B., Wiesner, G. L., Juengst, E. T., O’Riordan, M., Matthews, A. L., & Robin, N. H. (2003). Duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease: Genetic counselor’s clinical experience. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C, 119C, 27–34. doi:10.1002/ajmg.c.10005.CrossRef

13.

Giarelli, E. (2001). Ethical issues in genetic testing. Journal of Infusion Nursing, 24(5), 301–310. doi:10.1097/00129804-200109000-00004.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Goelen, G., Rigo, A., Bonduelle, M., & De Grève, J. (1999). Moral concerns of different types of patients in clinical BRCA1/2 gene mutation testing. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(5), 1595–1600.PubMed

15.

Greenberg, R., Laupacis, A., Levinson, W., & Martin, D. K. (2008). Priority setting in the Ontario wait time strategy: Evaluating public involvement. BioMed Central Health Services Research, 7, 186.

16.

Hallowell, N., Ardern-Jones, A., Eeles, R., Foster, C., Lucassen, A., Moynihan, C., et al. (2005). Communication about genetic testing in families of male BRCA1/2 carriers and non-carriers: Patterns, priorities and problems. Clinical Genetics, 67(6), 492–502. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0004.2005.00443.x.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Hallowell, N., Foster, C., Eeles, R., Ardern-Jones, A., Murday, V., & Watson, M. (2003). Balancing autonomy and responsibility: The ethics of generating and disclosing genetic information. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29(2), 74–83. doi:10.1136/jme.29.2.74.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Ham, C. (1993). Rationing in action: Priority Setting in the NHS: Reports from six districts. British Medical Journal, 307(6901), 436.CrossRef

19.

Harris, M., Winship, I., & Spriggs, M. (2005). Controversies and ethical issues in cancer-genetics clinics. The lancet Oncology, 6(5), 301–310. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70166-2.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Huibers, A. K., & van’t Spijker, A. (1998). The autonomy paradox: Predictive genetic testing and autonomy: Three essential problems. Patient Education and Counseling, 35, 53–62. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(98)00083-4.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Jordan, J., Dowswell, T., Harrison, S., Lilford, R. J., & Mort, M. (1998). Health needs assessment: Whose priorities? Listening to users and the public. British Medical Journal, 316, 1668–1670.PubMed

22.

Kent, A. (2003). Consent and confidentiality in genetics: Whose information is it anyway? Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 16–18. doi:10.1136/jme.29.1.16.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Knoppers, B. M. (2002). Genetic information and the family: Are we our brother’s keeper? Trends in Biotechnology, 20(2), 85–86. doi:10.1016/S0167-7799(01)01879-0.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Lenaghan, J. (1999). Involving the public in rationing decisions. The experience of citizens’ juries. Health Policy (Amsterdam), 49(1–2), 45–61. doi:10.1016/S0168-8510(99)00042-1.

25.

Martin, D. K., Abelson, J., & Singer, P. A. (2002). Participation in health care priority setting through the eyes of the participants. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 7, 222–229. doi:10.1258/135581902320432750.CrossRef

26.

Mykitiuk, R. (2004). Caveat emptor: Direct-to-consumer supply and advertising of genetic testing. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 27(1), 23–32.PubMed

27.

Nisker, J., Martin, D. K., Bluhm, R., & Daar, A. S. (2006). Theatre as a public engagement tool for health-policy development. Health Policy (Amsterdam), 78, 258–271. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.10.009.

28.

Ossa, D. F., & Towse, A. (2004). Genetic screening, health care and the insurance industry. Should genetic information be made available to insurers? The European Journal of Health Economics, 5(2), 116–121. doi:10.1007/s10198-003-0213-2.PubMed

29.

Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 3–29.CrossRef

30.

Simrell King, C. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58, 317–326. doi:10.2307/977561.CrossRef

31.

Traulsen, J. M., & Almarsdottir, B. (2005). Pharmaceutical policy and the lay public. Pharmacy World & Science, 27, 273–277. doi:10.1007/s11096-005-8512-6.CrossRef

32.

Wellcome Trust. (2004). Public engagement: Sciart. www.wellcome.ac.uk/Funding/Public-engagement/Past-funding/WTD038569.htm.

33.

Wilfond, B. S., Rothenberg, K. H., Thomson, E. J., & Lerman, C. (1997). Cancer genetic susceptibility testing: Ethical and policy implications for future research and clinical practice. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 25(4), 243–251. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.1997.tb01406.x.CrossRef

Title: Public Perceptions of Ethical Issues Regarding Adult Predictive Genetic Testing
Authors: Douglas K. Martin
Heather L. Greenwood
Jeff Nisker
Publication date: 01-06-2010
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Health Care Analysis / Issue 2/2010
Print ISSN: 1065-3058
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3394
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-009-0113-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Public Perceptions of Ethical Issues Regarding Adult Predictive Genetic Testing

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2010

Understanding Palliative Cancer Chemotherapy: About Shared Decisions and Shared Trajectories

Successful Priority Setting in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Framework for Evaluation

Assisted Reproduction: A Comparative Review of IVF Policies in Two Pro-Natalist Countries

An Argument in Support of Suicide Centres

A Logical Analysis of Slippery Slope Arguments

Public Financing of IVF: A Review of Policy Rationales