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
. 2016 Mar;42(3):174-9.
doi: 10.1136/medethics-2015-102781. Epub 2016 Jan 7.

'Is this knowledge mine and nobody else's? I don't feel that.' Patient views about consent, confidentiality and information-sharing in genetic medicine

Affiliations

'Is this knowledge mine and nobody else's? I don't feel that.' Patient views about consent, confidentiality and information-sharing in genetic medicine

Sandi Dheensa et al. J Med Ethics. 2016 Mar.

Erratum in

Abstract

In genetic medicine, a patient's diagnosis can mean their family members are also at risk, raising a question about how consent and confidentiality should function in clinical genetics. This question is particularly pressing when it is unclear whether a patient has shared information. Conventionally, healthcare professionals view confidentiality at an individual level and 'disclosure without consent' as the exception, not the rule. The relational joint account model, by contrast, conceptualises genetic information as confidential at the familial level and encourages professionals to take disclosure as the default position. In this study, we interviewed 33 patients about consent and confidentiality and analysed data thematically. Our first theme showed that although participants thought of certain aspects of genetic conditions--for example, the way they affect day-to-day health--as somewhat personal, they perceived genetic information--for example, the mutation in isolation--as familial. Most thought these elements were separable and thought family members had a right to know the latter, identifying a broad range of harms that would justify disclosure. Our second theme illustrated that participants nonetheless had some concerns about what, if any, implications there would be of professionals treating such information as familial and they emphasised the importance of being informed about the way their information would be shared. Based on these results, we recommend that professionals take disclosure as the default position, but make clear that they will treat genetic information as familial during initial consultations and address any concerns therein.

Keywords: Autonomy; Confidentiality/Privacy; Family; Genethics; Genetic Screening/Testing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Widdows H. Between the individual and the community: the impact of genetics on ethical models. New Genet Soc 2009:28:173–88. 10.1080/14636770902901611 - DOI
    1. Clarke A, Richards M, Kerzin-Storrar L, et al. . Genetic professionals’ reports of nondisclosure of genetic risk information within families. Eur J Hum Genet 2005;13:556–62. 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201394 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Parker M. Scaling ethics up and down: moral craft in clinical genetics and in global health research. J Med Ethics 2015;41:134–7. 10.1136/medethics-2014-102303 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. GMC. Confidentiality. London: General Medical Council, 2009;67–9.
    1. BMA. Confidentiality as part of a bigger picture. London: BMA, 2005.

Publication types