PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 957367

Ethical issues arising from human genetics.

Abstract

Advances in understanding genetic disorders have been rapid in the last few years and with them the need and desire for genetic counselling have grown. Almost simultaneously, particularly in the USA, several large screening programmes have been initiated to screen large numbers of people who may be carriers of such deleterious genes as those of Tay-Sachs disease and sickle cell anaemia. The authors of this paper, clinical medical students at University College Hospital, London, spent some time studying the ethical issues raised. The first part of their study, which is not published here, relates to the biochemistry of certain genetic disorders, so leading up to the aspect of the subject which must concern readers of this journal, genetic counselling. At present genetic counselling is generally the province of the medical practitioner working with clinical biochemists, and in this paper their function is described and how programmes of screening for carriers are designed. Whether the subjects of the screening tests are found to be 'innocent' or 'guilty' psychological problems confront them, and of these the genetic counsellor must be aware. In fact the range of ethical problems raised by such counselling is wide and can only be sketched in this article.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A Arnold, R Moseley. 1976. Ethical issues arising from human genetics.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/957367/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Confession.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Confidentiality↗

Medical Geneticists' duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease.

A patient who refuses to notify their relatives of potential at-risk status brings a genetics provider to face conflicting ethical principles and ill-defined legal precedent. Genetics professionals' views on the disclosure of patient information to at-risk relatives have remained largely unexamined. Prior analyses have been limited to identifying factors contributing to genetics providers' self-predicted responses in hypothetical scenarios. Our group was the first to examine the clinical experience of genetic counselors with this issue [Dugan et al., 2003]. We report here results from our follow-up survey of medical geneticists who are members of either the American Society of Human Genetics and/or American College of Medical Genetics in an effort to identify their experiences in warning at-risk relatives and the factors driving their decision-making processes. Over two-thirds of medical geneticists surveyed (69%, 143/206) believe they do bear responsibility to warn their patients' relatives when found to be at-risk for genetic disease. One-quarter (25%, 31/123) of medical geneticists who faced the dilemma of a patient refusing to notify their at-risk relatives seriously considered disclosure to those at-risk relatives without patient consent. Only four respondents proceeded to warn at-risk relatives of their status. Whereas genetic counselors cited emotional issues as playing a primary role in their decision not to warn, medical geneticists identified patient confidentiality, eventual case resolution by other means, and legal liability as the major factors leading to non-disclosure in 76% of actual scenarios. Responsibilities of medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and non-genetics healthcare professionals facing this issue will need to be more clearly defined to provide optimal medical care within the bounds of acceptable practice.

Confidentiality↗