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
. 2017;19(1):1-72.
Epub 2016 Nov 4.

REFUTING THE RIGHT NOT TO KNOW

Benjamin E Berkman  1
Affiliations

REFUTING THE RIGHT NOT TO KNOW

Benjamin E Berkman. J Health Care Law Policy. 2017.

Abstract

While promising to eventually revolutionize medicine, the capacity to cheaply and quickly generate an individual's entire genome has not been without controversy. Producing information on this scale seems to violate some of the accepted norms governing the practice of medicine, norms that evolved during the early years of genetic testing when a targeted paradigm dominated. One of these widely accepted norms was that an individual had a right not to know genetic information about him or herself. Prompted by evolving professional practice guidelines, the right not to know has become a highly controversial topic. The medical community and bioethicists are actively engaged in a contentious debate about the extent to which individual choice should play a role (if at all) in determining which clinically significant findings are returned. This paper explores the extent to which it is legally and ethically necessary to respect the so-called right not to know genetic information about oneself. Challenging the majority view that the right not to know is sacrosanct, I push back against that vigorously held (although not always rigorously defended) position, in defense of the idea that we should abandon the notion of a strong right not to know. Drawing on the fields of law, philosophy and social science, I provide an extended argument in support of a default for returning high value genetic information without asking about a preference not to know. I conclude by offering some recommendations about how best to balance individual autonomy and professional beneficence as the field of genomic medicine continues to evolve.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. See Mardis Elaine R., A Decade’s Perspective on DNA Sequencing Technology, 470 NATURE 198, 198 (2011) (discussing the advancements in sequencing technology from 2001 to 2011 and analyzing the impacts of these advancements in various fields). - PubMed
    1. Collins Francis S. et al. , The Human Genome Project: Lessons from Large-Scale Biology, 300 SCIENCE 286, 286–89 (2003) (detailing the timeline and cost of sequencing the first human genome). - PubMed
    1. Mardis, supra note 1, at 198–99, 201.
    1. See Kris Wetterstrand DNA Sequencing Costs: Data from the NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program (GSP) – Cost Per Genome, NAT’L HUM. GENOME RES. INST. (Oct. 2, 2015), http://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts (including a graph showing the decreasing cost of genome sequencing since 2001); see also Francis S. Collins & Margaret A. Hamburg, First FDA Authorization for Next-Generation Sequencer, 369 NEW ENG. J. MED. 2369, 2369 (2013) (“[A] human genome can be sequenced in about 24 hours for…less than $5,000.”); see also W. Gregory Feero et al., Genomic Medicine — An Updated Primer, 362 NEW ENG. J. MED. 2001, 2008, 2010 (2010) (discussing advances in technology that are driving down the costs of genome sequencing).
    1. See Teer Jamie K. & Mullikin James C., Exome Sequencing: The Sweet Spot Before Whole Genomes, 19 HUM. MOLECULAR GENETICS R145, R147 (2010) (explaining the wide range of purposes for which genomic sequencing can be used, from “disease causation and diagnosis to evolutionary comparison of ancient genomes”). - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources