Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Aug;17(8):668-78.
doi: 10.1038/gim.2014.173. Epub 2014 Dec 11.

Is there a duty to recontact in light of new genetic technologies? A systematic review of the literature

Affiliations
Free article

Is there a duty to recontact in light of new genetic technologies? A systematic review of the literature

Ellen Otten et al. Genet Med. 2015 Aug.
Free article

Abstract

Purpose: With rapid advances in genetic technologies, new genetic information becomes available much faster today than just a few years ago. This has raised questions about whether clinicians have a duty to recontact eligible patients when new genetic information becomes available and, if such duties exist, how they might be implemented in practice.

Methods: We report the results of a systematic literature search on the ethical, legal, social (including psychological), and practical issues involved in recontacting former patients who received genetic services. We identified 1,428 articles, of which 61 are covered in this review.

Results: The empirical evidence available indicates that most but not all patients value being recontacted. A minority of (older) articles conclude that recontacting should be a legal duty. Most authors consider recontacting to be ethically desirable but practically unfeasible. Various solutions to overcome these practical barriers have been proposed, involving efforts of laboratories, clinicians, and patients.

Conclusion: To advance the discussion on implementing recontacting in clinical genetics, we suggest focusing on the question of in what situations recontacting might be regarded as good standard of care. To this end, reaching a professional consensus, obtaining more extensive empirical evidence, and developing professional guidelines are important.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. N Engl J Med. 2011 Oct 13;365(15):1367-9 - PubMed
    1. Behav Sci Law. 1996 Autumn;14(4):393-410 - PubMed
    1. Houst Law Rev. 1992 Spring;29(1):149-84 - PubMed
    1. J Genet Couns. 2008 Jun;17(3):261-73 - PubMed
    1. Hastings Cent Rep. 2010 May-Jun;40(3):39-45 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources