Disclosure of Huntington's disease to family members: the dilemma of known but unknowing parties

Predictive genetic testing presents unique issues in the legal and ethical debate concerning disclosure of information within the physician-patient relationship. A duty to disclose information to family members has been found when the disclosure is likely to result in the ability to mitigate the damaging effects of the disease. When evaluating the situation where a individual is at risk of Huntington's disease, the analysis must be different, as shown in this paper, and necessitates an ethical and legal examination of the consequences of receipt of the information on family members, those known but unknowing parties who are at risk of inheriting a genetic disease. This paper analyzes the potential legal duty of a physician to disclose or withhold genetic information from the family members of patients. Existing statutes governing genetic information do not directly address the interests of family members. Courts that have ruled on the duty to disclose medical or genetic information have analyzed these issues using traditional concepts of tort law. Yet the situation presented by Huntington's disease is unique and demands a different framework for analysis, given the late onset and lack of curative or ameliorative treatment. This paper also analyzes the ethical standards to be invoked when considering violating the privacy of a patient or a family member. The principles of autonomy and self-determination of family members are considered, versus the risk of harm and the privacy interest in not knowing potentially devastating information.     

Legal obligation of physicians to disclose information to patients.

Obtaining a patient''s consent is a routine daily process for physicians, although many are unaware of the scope of this legal obligation. In 1980 the Supreme Court of Canada changed the law relating to informed consent; promotion of patient autonomy shifted the focus from a standard of professional disclosure to one of a "reasonable patient." Physicians have a legal obligation to disclose to patients specific information, the scope of which is determined by a court on the basis of a reasonable patient''s expectation and the circumstances of the case. This gives rise to many controversies in the practice of clinical medicine. It is difficult for physicians to know which treatment risks require disclosure, since this is decided by a court in a retrospective analysis of the evidence. Will the court recognize exceptions to the duty of disclosing information? If several health care professionals are involved in a patient''s care who has the duty to disclose information? Can this duty be delegated? This paper provides physicians with guidelines that are consistent with the promotion of patient autonomy and comply with the doctrine of informed consent. In addition, it suggests ways of improving awareness of the doctrine and procedures to ease its application.     

When families cannot "let go": ethical decision-making at the bedside.

Shared decision-making at the bedside is now a regular feature of medical practice. When disagreements arise between a patient and family members caregivers sometimes find themselves caught in a complex tangle of human relationships that strains monochrome ethical thinking. The patient''s expressed wishes are often compromised for the sake of the family''s needs. Conversely, a unilateral appeal for patient autonomy may prove insensitive to the hurt and the needs of the family. We describe a relatively unsuccessful attempt by a patient''s caregivers to buy time to maximize the interests of the patient and her family and discuss the way in which the family dynamics militated against the rather obvious solution of promoting the patient''s right to refuse treatment. The purpose of this article is not to evoke sympathy for health care professionals in dealing with such conflicts but rather to heighten awareness of the issues at stake and to stimulate thinking about ways and means to bring about a more favourable outcome than the one described here.     

Bioethics for clinicians: 2. Disclosure.

In the context of patient consent, "disclosure" refers to the provision of relevant information by the clinician and its comprehension by the patient. Both elements are necessary for valid consent. Disclosure should inform the patient adequately about the treatment and its expected effects, relevant alternative options and their benefits and risks, and the consequences of declining or delaying treatment. The clinician''s goal is to disclose information that a reasonable person in the patient''s position would need in order to make an informed decision. Therefore, clinicians may need to consider how the proposed treatment (and other options) might affect the patient''s employment, finances, family life and other personal concerns. Clinicians may also need to be sensitive to cultural and religious beliefs that can affect disclosure.     

Familial Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease: Case report and role of genetic counseling in post mortem testing

Here we present a case of an asymptomatic 53-year-old woman who sought genetic testing for Familial Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (fCJD) after learning that her mother had fCJD. The patient's mother had a sudden onset of memory problems and rapidly deteriorating mental faculties in her late 70s, which led to difficulties ambulating, progressive non-fluent aphasia, dysphagia and death within ～1 y of symptom onset. The cause of death was reported as “rapid onset dementia.” The patient's family, unhappy with the vague diagnosis, researched prion disorders online and aggressively pursued causation and submitted frozen brain tissue from the mother to the National Prion Disease Surveillance Center, where testing revealed a previously described 5-octapeptide repeat insertion (5-OPRI) in the prion protein gene (PRNP) that is known to cause fCJD. The family had additional questions about the implications of this result and thus independently sought out genetic counseling.

?While rare, fCJD is likely underdiagnosed due to clinical heterogeneity, rapid onset, early non-specific symptomatology, and overlap in the differential diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and Lewy body dementias. When fCJD is identified, a multidisciplinary approach to return of results that includes the affected patient's provider, genetics professionals, and mental health professionals is key to the care of the family. We present an example case which discusses the psychosocial issues encountered and the role of genetic counseling in presymptomatic testing for incurable neurodegenerative conditions. Ordering physicians should be aware of the basic issues surrounding presymptomatic genetic testing and identify local genetic counseling resources for their patients.     

From Secrets of Life to the Life of Secrets: Tracing Genetic Knowledge as Genealogical Ethics in Biomedical Britain

I argue that the facts of a 'genealogical ethics' are built up over time as local moralities of information disclosure and non-disclosure. In the context of predictive genetic testing technologies, family members must discriminate between genetic information that they think is 'good' to know or make known, and knowledge that they think is 'bad' to tell and share with others. But attempts to deal with the kinship implications of genetic foreknowledge frequently entail unresolved processes of moral decision-making, both within and across the generations. Seen as embodied experiences of moral reckoning, these genealogical knowledge dilemmas also implicate a myriad of interests and divergent claims beyond the life of any one person. This article considers why a specifically anthropological formulation of 'genealogical ethics' challenges the conceptual premiss of individual autonomy underpinning the 'right to know' debates of mainstream Western bioethics.     

Bioethics for clinicians: 14. Ethics and genetics in medicine

Information about a patient''s inherited risk of disease has important ethical and legal implications in clinical practice. Because genetic information is by nature highly personal yet familial, issues of confidentiality arise. Counselling and informed consent before testing are important in view of the social and psychological risks that accompany testing, the complexity of information surrounding testing, and the fact that effective interventions are often not available. Follow-up counselling is also important to help patients integrate test results into their lives and the lives of their relatives. Genetic counselling should be provided by practitioners who have up-to-date knowledge of the genetics of and the tests available for specific diseases, are aware of the social and psychological risks associated with testing, and are able to provide appropriate clinical follow-up. Some physicians may elect to refer patients for genetic counselling and testing. However, it is inevitable that all physicians will be involved in long-term follow-up both by monitoring for disease and by supporting the integration of genetic information into patients'' lives.     

How the Electronic Health Record Will Change the Future of Health Care

Genetic testing is expected to play a critical role in patient care in the near future. Advances in genomic research have the potential to impact medicine in very tangible and direct ways, from carrier screening to disease diagnosis and prognosis to targeted treatments and personalized medicine. However, numerous barriers to widespread adoption of genetic testing continue to exist, and health information technology will be a critical means of addressing these challenges. Electronic health records (EHRs) are a digital replacement for the traditional paper-based patient chart designed to improve the quality of patient care. EHRs have become increasingly essential to managing the wealth of existing clinical information that now includes genetic information extracted from the patient genome. The EHR is capable of changing health care in the future by transforming the way physicians use genomic information in the practice of medicine.     

Experiences of Genetic Risk: Disclosure and the Gendering of Responsibility

The question of ‘who owns genetic information‘ is increasingly a focus of ethical inquiry. Applied to predictive testing, several recent critiques suggest that persons with a genetic disorder have a moral duty to disclose that information to other family members. The justification for this obligation is that genetic information belongs to and may benefit not only a single individual, but also members of a biological kinship. This paper considers this issue from a different vantage point: How does gender intersect with the moral duty to disclose genetic information? Scholars have argued that gender is partly comprised of distinct assignments and assumptions of responsibility. Thus, there is a danger that gendered patterns of socialization will make women feel that they should take primary responsibility for disclosing genetic information to others. This article explores issues of responsibility and disclosure of risk information by drawing on an empirical study of women and men who have undergone genetic testing for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer. The research study suggests that disclosure of genetic information is a gendered activity, with both the benefits and burdens of this task falling primarily on women. It also illustrates that when disclosure is understood contextually, it is a far more complicated matter than when viewed through a theoretical lens. The article considers the relevance of these findings on ethical debate and genetic counselling practices.     

Disclosure of personal medical information: differences among parents and affected adults for genetic and nongenetic conditions

Protecting the confidentiality of medical information has been an issue of great interest in the fields of bioethics, public policy, and law. Few empirical studies have addressed patient experiences and attitudes toward disclosure of private medical information in multiple contexts such as health insurance, employment, and the family. Furthermore, it is unclear whether differences exist in experiences and attitudes about privacy between those living with a serious medical condition versus those who have a child with a medical condition. The study sought to determine whether attitudes and experiences related to medical privacy and confidentiality differ between affected adults and parents of affected children. Interviews were conducted with 296 adults and parents of children with sickle cell disease (SCD), cystic fibrosis (CF), or diabetes mellitus (DM). This cross-sectional study collected data regarding their experiences, attitudes, and beliefs concerning medical privacy and confidentiality. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was conducted on quantitative data. Qualitative analysis was conducted on data from open-ended response items. Parents disclose their child's diagnosis to others more often than affected adults disclose their own disease status. Parents are less likely than affected adults to regret their disclosure, to hope others do not find out, to have been pressured to share information, and to be asked about their disease by employers. Affected adults express greater concern about disclosure, a greater prevalence and greater fear of discrimination, and experience greater pressure from family members to disclose. Clinicians and researchers working with these populations should consider these differences in privacy and disclosure. Further study is necessary to examine the implications of these differences in attitudes and experiences concerning insurance, employment, and social interactions among persons with these conditions.     

Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer family members' perceptions about the duty to inform and health professionals' role in disseminating genetic information

This study's aim was to ascertain hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) families' views on the duty to inform with particular focus on the role of health professionals in disseminating familial genetic information. Eighty members of 16 families with a clinical or molecular diagnosis of HNPCC completed qualitative interviews regarding views on family members' right to know and who should disseminate familial genetic information. Most indicated that everyone in the family should know about the presence of a mutation in the family, with family members themselves being the preferable informant, supported by health professionals who were seen as helpful in overcoming barriers. All but one respondent indicated that if a parent did not test and presumably did not inform his/her child about the family mutation, the child should be informed by other family members or by a health professional. Many were attuned to confidentiality concerns, but judged them to be outweighed by the importance of family members knowing about the mutation and undertaking proper surveillance. Respondents were more private about the disclosure of individual results to other family members, clearly distinguishing personal results from familial genetic information. These families with a hereditary colon cancer syndrome favor open sharing of genetic information within the family, and desire the supportive involvement of health care professionals in disseminating genetic information.     

Discrimination as a consequence of genetic testing.

Genetic discrimination refers to discrimination directed against an individual or family based solely on an apparent or perceived genetic variation from the "normal" human genotype. We describe here the results of a case history study designed to assess whether or not genetic discrimination exists. Using the above definition of genetic discrimination and applying stringent criteria for case selection, we find that genetic discrimination exists and is manifested in many social institutions, especially in the health and life insurance industries. Stigmatization, and denial of services or entitlements to individuals who have a genetic diagnosis but who are asymptomatic or who will never become significantly impaired, is noted. Follow-up comprehensive studies on the significance and varieties of genetic discrimination are needed. In order to avoid creating a new social underclass based on genetic discrimination (the "asymptomatic ill"), existing and future genetic testing or screening programs need review by medical, scientific, legal, and social policy experts, as well as the public, and may require modification.     

The role of computers in preventive medicine in a rural family practice.

Five family physicians in a group practice in rural Quebec have introduced a computer system to improve the delivery of preventive medicine. In addition to billing, the computer is used mainly to recall specific groups of patients for preventive measures, to prompt the physicians to carry out certain procedures at the patient''s next visit, to indicate which procedures are required for the family members and to generate reminder letters. The physicians are conducting a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of computer-generated reminder letters on patient compliance and disease prevention among families in their practice.     

Impact of Genetic Counseling and Connexin-26 and Connexin-30 Testing on Deaf Identity and Comprehension of Genetic Test Results in a Sample of Deaf Adults: A Prospective,Longitudinal Study

Using a prospective, longitudinal study design, this paper addresses the impact of genetic counseling and testing for deafness on deaf adults and the Deaf community. This study specifically evaluated the effect of genetic counseling and Connexin-26 and Connexin-30 genetic test results on participants'' deaf identity and understanding of their genetic test results. Connexin-26 and Connexin-30 genetic testing was offered to participants in the context of linguistically and culturally appropriate genetic counseling. Questionnaire data collected from 209 deaf adults at four time points (baseline, immediately following pre-test genetic counseling, 1-month following genetic test result disclosure, and 6-months after result disclosure) were analyzed. Four deaf identity orientations (hearing, marginal, immersion, bicultural) were evaluated using subscales of the Deaf Identity Development Scale-Revised. We found evidence that participants understood their specific genetic test results following genetic counseling, but found no evidence of change in deaf identity based on genetic counseling or their genetic test results. This study demonstrated that culturally and linguistically appropriate genetic counseling can improve deaf clients'' understanding of genetic test results, and the formation of deaf identity was not directly related to genetic counseling or Connexin-26 and Connexin-30 genetic test results.     

Genetic testing and insurance. The Ad Hoc Committee on Genetic Testing/Insurance Issues.

The rapid expansion of opportunities for genetic testing has been accompanied by complex questions about the appropriate relationships between providers, patients, and insurers. Some of these questions involve large public-policy decisions, such as whether the government should guarantee access to health care for all citizens. Universal access to health care, without regard to past, present, or future risk of disease, could eliminate risk-oriented underwriting in health-care coverage. A positive response to that question will ameliorate other problems. Until universal access is reality, genetic testing and genetic diagnosis will raise important issues for the practicing geneticist. How much does a client need to know about insurance implications before consenting to a genetic test? Should patients be counseled to purchase insurance before being tested? Should genetic information be excluded from medical records before their release to insurance companies for routine reimbursements or underwriting? What are the ethical and legal responsibilities of the geneticist?     

Genetic testing,life insurance,and adverse selection.

Life insurance is a key element of the UK social structure in terms of family protection and house purchase; it thus needs to be viewed in this broad context, rather than solely as a commercial activity. Insurers have not so far actively requested genetic tests for life insurance, but have insisted on knowing of and being able to act on existing genetic test information. The main reason given for this has been to avoid serious adverse selection; however, this has never been adequately estimated. Review of the different major categories of Mendelian genetic disorders suggests that the scope for adverse selection is extremely limited and that insurers would lose little, and possibly gain more, by foregoing the disclosure and use of this information in relation to life insurance policies of ''normal'' size and nature. The likely future use in service of genetic tests based on susceptibility or population screening makes it especially important that the issue is rapidly resolved for Mendelian disorders; so far there is no sign that insurers are willing to achieve this.     

Genetic Counseling—A Health Department Service to Physicians

Questions about inheritance in all kinds of diseases and defects are commonly asked of nearly all physicians. In attempting to answer these questions, however, the physician is often hampered by lack of formal instruction in clinical genetics.Since the health department, if it is to carry out its epidemiologic function, must be as concerned over the increasing identification of genetic agents in disease as it is and has been over environmental disease agents, it should come to represent a source of assistance not now generally available to the physician. In short, as it carries out those activities by which its store of general genetic information is increased, and until other sources of genetic consultation become reasonably available, the health department can be of real service to physicians as a resource to which they may turn for help when dealing with families wanting genetic information.Such a service has been provided experimentally for the last two years by the Contra Costa County Health Department.This program calls for the taking of family pedigrees by public health nurses on families with questions of a genetic nature who are health department clients and on families who are referred by their private physicians for this service. An interpretation of each pedigree is made by the department''s physician in charge of the program and submitted to the family''s physician for his use in counseling the family. Evidence to date suggests the process can be a highly useful service to the practitioner and his patient.     

A defense of conscientious objection: Why health is integral to the permissibility of medical refusals

Schuklenk, Smalling, and Savulescu put forth four conditions that delineate when conscientious objection is impermissible. Roughly, they argue for the following claim: if some practice is legal, standard, expected of a profession, and in the patient's interest, then medical professionals cannot refuse to perform the practice. In this essay, I argue that these conditions are not jointly sufficient to deny medical professionals the ability to refuse to perform procedures that detract from a patient's health. They are insufficient to bar medical refusals to perform certain practices because, even when these conditions are met, non-health conducive practices would not be open to refusal by the physician. I provide an example of a non-health conducive practice female genital mutilation, which meets all of the proposed conditions but, intuitively, should be open to medical refusals. As a result, I conclude that the proposed conditions are insufficient to determine when conscientious objection is impermissible. I then offer an amendment to their position by suggesting that a practice, in addition to the other four conditions, must also be health conducive in order to remove the medical professional's ability to refuse to perform the practice.     

The Australian joint inquiry into the Protection of Human Genetic Information

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) and the Australian Health Ethics Committee are currently engaged in an inquiry into the Protection of Human Genetic Information. In particular, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Health and Ageing have asked us to focus, in relation to human genetic information and tissue samples, on how best to ensure world's best practice in relation to: privacy protection; protection against unlawful discrimination; and the maintenance of high ethical standards in medical research and clinical practice. While initial concerns and controversies have related mainly to aspects of medical research (e.g. consent; re-use of samples) and access to private insurance coverage, relevant issues arise in a wide variety of contexts, including: employment; medical practice; tissue banks and genetic databases; health administration; superannuation; access to government services (e.g. schools, nursing homes); law enforcement; and use by government authorities (e.g. for immigration purposes) or other bodies (e.g. by sports associations). Under the Australian federal system, it is also the case that laws and practices may vary across states and territories. For example, neonatal genetic testing is standard, but storage and retention policies for the resulting 'Guthrie cards' differ markedly. Similarly, some states have developed highly linked health information systems (e.g. incorporating hospitals, doctors' offices and public records), while others discourage such linkages owing to concerns about privacy. The challenge for Australia is to develop policies, standards and practices that promote the intelligent use of genetic information, while providing a level of security with which the community feels comfortable. The inquiry is presently reviewing the adequacy of existing laws and regulatory mechanisms, but recognizes that it will be even more important to develop a broad mix of strategies, such as community and professional education, and the development of official standards and industry codes that reflect emerging international best practice in the area.     

Alpha-locus hexosaminidase genetic compound with juvenile gangliosidosis phenotype: clinical,genetic, and biochemical studies.

A 3-year-old boy developed progressive neurological deterioration in his third year, characterized by dementia, ataxia, myoclonic jerks, and bilateral macular cherry-red spots. Hexosaminidase A (HEX A) was partially decreased in the patient''s serum, leukocytes, and cultured skin fibroblasts. Hexosaminidase was studied in serum and leukocytes from family members. Four members of the paternal branch appeared to be carriers of classical infantile Tay-Sachs allele, HEX alpha 2, probably receiving the gene from one great-grandparent of Ashkenazi origin. In the maternal branch, no one was a carrier of classical infantile Tay-Sachs disease, but five individuals were carriers of a milder alpha-locus defect. The patient, therefore, was a genetic compound of two different alpha-locus hexosaminidase mutations. At least 21 families with late-infantile or juvenile GM2 gangliosidosis have been reported, 18 of them with alpha-locus mutations, and three with beta-locus mutations. Genetic compounds of hexosaminidase have been reported in at least seven families, five with alpha-locus mutations and two with beta-locus mutations. The compound had the phenotype of infantile Tay-Sachs disease in one family, infantile Sandhoff disease in another, and the normal phenotype in the rest.