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
Review
. 2022 Jul;30(7):766-771.
doi: 10.1038/s41431-021-01016-3. Epub 2022 Jan 8.

Informing relatives of their genetic risk: an examination of the Belgian legal context

Affiliations
Review

Informing relatives of their genetic risk: an examination of the Belgian legal context

Amicia Phillips et al. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022 Jul.

Abstract

Findings from genomic sequencing can have important implications for patients and relatives. For this reason, most professional guidelines support that patients have an ethical duty to inform relatives and, when disclosure does not occur, most guidelines allow health-care professionals (HCPs) to breach confidentiality. Translating the ethical duties to respect the patient's confidentiality and prevent harm in at-risk relatives into legislation is a complex issue due to the both personal and familial nature of genetic information. In many countries there is no specific guideline or law addressing family communication of genetic information and thus it is unclear what duties patients and HCPs have towards at-risk relatives. Using Belgium as an example for countries in which this is the case, we examined the existing Belgian legislation in relation to three central topics: (1) patients' duties to family members, (2) respect for patient confidentiality and privacy, and (3) HCPs' duties to family members. We then investigated international legal frameworks and compared it with the Belgian context to see to what degree international precedent could aid in the interpretation of Belgian law. Based on our review of the legislation, we make recommendations for the interpretation of current law and examine whether there is sufficient legal precedent to answer the questions central to family communication of genetic information. Although we focus on the specific Belgian legislation, the discussions are relevant for many other countries that have similar legislative approaches.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

    1. Forrest L, Delatycki M, Skene L, Aitken M. Communicating genetic information in families–a review of guidelines and position papers. Eur J Hum Genet. 2007;15:612–8. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201822. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Phillips A, Borry P, Van Hoyweghen I, Vears DF. Disclosure of genetic information to family members: a systematic review of normative documents. Genet Med. 2021;23:2038–46. doi: 10.1038/s41436-021-01248-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. van den Heuvel LM, Smets EMA, van Tintelen JP, Christiaans I. How to inform relatives at risk of hereditary diseases? A mixed-methods systematic review on patient attitudes. J Genet Couns. 2019;28:1042–58. doi: 10.1002/jgc4.1143. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Act 2012 (Cwlth) (Australia).
    1. ABC v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust. Case No: QB-2013-009529. In the High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench. 2020.

Publication types