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
. 2020 Nov 27;47(12):e12.
doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106236. Online ahead of print.

Healthcare professionals' responsibility for informing relatives at risk of hereditary disease

Affiliations

Healthcare professionals' responsibility for informing relatives at risk of hereditary disease

Kalle Grill et al. J Med Ethics. .

Abstract

Advances in genetic diagnostics lead to more patients being diagnosed with hereditary conditions. These findings are often relevant to patients' relatives. For example, the success of targeted cancer prevention is dependent on effective disclosure to relatives at risk. Without clear information, individuals cannot take advantage of predictive testing and preventive measures. Against this background, we argue that healthcare professionals have a duty to make actionable genetic information available to their patients' at-risk relatives. We do not try to settle the difficult question of how this duty should be balanced against other duties, such as the duty of confidentiality and a possible duty not to know one's genetic predisposition. Instead, we argue for the importance of recognising a general responsibility towards at-risk relatives, to be discharged as well as possible within the limits set by conflicting duties and practical considerations. According to a traditional and still dominant perspective, it is the patient's duty to inform his or her relatives, while healthcare professionals are only obliged to support their patients in discharging this duty. We argue that this perspective is a mistake and an anomaly. Healthcare professionals do not have a duty to ensure that their patients promote the health of third parties. It is often effective and desirable to engage patients in disseminating information to their relatives. However, healthcare professionals should not thereby deflect their own moral responsibility.

Keywords: applied and professional ethics; genetic information.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hall MJ, Obeid EI, Schwartz SC, et al. . Genetic testing for hereditary cancer predisposition: BRCA1/2, Lynch syndrome, and beyond. Gynecol Oncol 2016;140(3):565–74. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.01.019 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Prince AER, Cadigan RJ, Henderson GE, et al. . Is there evidence that we should screen the general population for Lynch syndrome with genetic testing? A systematic review. Pharmgenomics Pers Med 2017;10:49–60. 10.2147/PGPM.S123808 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ladabaum U, Wang G, Terdiman J, et al. . Strategies to identify the Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(2):69. 10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00002 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pujol P, Lyonnet DS, Frebourg T, et al. . Lack of referral for genetic counseling and testing in BRCA1/2 and Lynch syndromes: a nationwide study based on 240,134 consultations and 134,652 genetic tests. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013;141(1):135–44. 10.1007/s10549-013-2669-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Menko FH, Ter Stege JA, van der Kolk LE, et al. . The uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome: a systematic review of the literature and implications for clinical practice. Fam Cancer 2019;18(1):127–35. 10.1007/s10689-018-0089-z - DOI - PubMed