What does the duty to warn require?

Duties When an Anonymous Student Health Survey Finds a Hot Spot of Suicidality

Public health agencies regularly survey randomly selected anonymous students to track drug use, sexual activities, and other risk behaviors. Students are unidentifiable, but a recent project that included school-level analysis discovered a school with alarmingly prevalent student suicidality. Given confidentiality protocols typical of surveillance, the surveyors were uncertain whether and how to intervene. We searched literature for duties to warn at-risk groups discovered during public health surveillance, but we found no directly applicable guidance or cases. Reasoning by analogy, we conclude that surveyors should contact the school's leaders to call attention to its outlier status, but public warning is unwarranted. However, such an ad hoc decision to issue a warning, even if only to school leaders, raises significant practical, legal and ethical issues. National public health and education associations should produce guidance that clarifies ethical and legal duties owed to schools and students involved in population health-risk surveillance.

Understanding What Information Is Valued By Research Participants, And Why

There is growing public demand that research participants receive all of their results, regardless of whether clinical action is indicated. Instead of the standard practice of returning only actionable results, we propose a reconceptualization called "return of value" to encompass the varied ways in which research participants value specific results and more general information they receive beyond actionable results. Our proposal is supported by a national survey of a diverse sample, which found that receiving research results would be valuable to most (78.5 percent) and would make them more likely to trust researchers (70.3 percent). Respondents highly valued results revealing genetic effects on medication response and predicting disease risk, as well as information about nearby clinical trials and updates on how their data were used. The information most valued varied by education, race/ethnicity, and age. Policies are needed to enable return of information in ways that recognize participants' differing informational needs and values.

Advanced cancer patient preferences for receiving molecular profiling results

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to discern preferences for receiving somatic molecular profiling (MP) results in cancer patients who have given consent to undergo testing.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study to explore patients' views on which MP results they would like to receive and why. Advanced cancer patients (n = 1299) completed questionnaires after giving consent to participate in a parent genomics study and undergoing MP. A subset of patients (n = 20) participated in qualitative interviews.

RESULTS

Almost all (96%) participants were interested in receiving results which would direct cancer treatment (ie, were actionable). A smaller majority wanted to access results which were not actionable (64%) or were variants of unknown significance (60%). Most (86%) were interested in finding out about germline findings, though not as a priority. Themes identified in interview data were: (a) Cancer is the focus; (b) Trust in clinicians; and (c) Respect for a right not to know.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of advanced cancer patients undergoing MP prioritised results which would lead to treatment options. They trusted their oncologists to help them navigate the results return process. While there was interest in knowing about other results, this was a lesser priority. Nevertheless, given high levels of interest in receiving all results, ethical aspects of not providing uninformative results requires further research, including a consideration of patient rationales for desiring this information and what health professionals can and should do to support patients in the absence of meaningful information being available.

Return of Results in Participant-Driven Research: Learning from Transformative Research Models

Participant-driven research (PDR) is a burgeoning domain of research innovation, often facilitated by mobile technologies (mHealth). Return of results and data are common hallmarks, grounded in transparency and data democracy. PDR has much to teach traditional research about these practices and successful engagement. Recommendations calling for new state laws governing research with mHealth modalities common in PDR and federal creation of review mechanisms, threaten to stifle valuable participant-driven innovation, including in return of results.

The Emergence of Clinical Research Ethics Consultation: Insights From a National Collaborative

The increasing complexity of human subjects research and its oversight has prompted researchers, as well as institutional review boards (IRBs), to have a forum in which to discuss challenging or novel ethical issues not fully addressed by regulations. Research ethics consultation (REC) services provide such a forum. In this article, we rely on the experiences of a national Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative that collected more than 350 research ethics consultations in a repository and published 18 challenging cases with accompanying ethical commentaries to highlight four contexts in which REC can be a valuable resource. REC assists: 1) investigators before and after the regulatory review; 2) investigators, IRBs, and other research administrators facing challenging and novel ethical issues; 3) IRBs and investigators with the increasing challenges of informed consent and risk/benefit analysis; and 4) in providing flexible and collaborative assistance to overcome study hurdles, mediate conflicts within a team, or directly engage with research participants. Institutions that have established, or plan to establish, REC services should work to raise the visibility of their service and engage in open communication with existing clinical ethics consult services as well as the IRB. While the IRB system remains the foundation for the ethical review of research, REC can be a valuable service for investigators, regulators, and research participants aligned with the goal of supporting ethical research.

Am I My Family's Keeper? Disclosure Dilemmas in Next-Generation Sequencing

Ever since genetic testing is possible for specific mutations, ethical debate has sparked on the question of whether professionals have a duty to warn not only patients but also their relatives that might be at risk for hereditary diseases. As next-generation sequencing (NGS) swiftly finds its way into clinical practice, the question who is responsible for conveying unsolicited findings to family members becomes increasingly urgent. Traditionally, there is a strong emphasis on the duties of the professional in this debate. But what is the role of the patient and her family? In this article, we discuss the question of whose duty it is to convey relevant genetic risk information concerning hereditary diseases that can be cured or prevented to the relatives of patients undergoing NGS. We argue in favor of a shared responsibility for professionals and patients and present a strategy that reconciles these roles: a moral accountability nudge. Incorporated into informed consent and counseling services such as letters and online tools, this nudge aims to create awareness on specific patient responsibilities. Commitment of all parties is needed to ensure adequate dissemination of results in the NGS era.

Postmortem disclosure of genetic information to family members: active or passive?

Advances in next-generation DNA sequencing (NGS) now make it possible, and affordable, to sequence the entire genome of an individual. Routine clinical application is on the horizon. There is a consensus that some subsets of genetic information should be disclosed to patients, but disclosure to their relatives is less consensual. This issue becomes especially salient after a patient's death, when permission can no longer be sought. There has however been little debate on postmortem disclosure. We identify and explain the arguments in favor of and against disclosure of genetic information to the relatives of a deceased patient. We conclude that there are valid reasons to communicate some subsets of genetic information to family members after death, and we propose a passive postmortem disclosure policy.

Disclosure of psychiatric manifestations of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome in medical genetics: A 12-year retrospective chart review

Individuals with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22qDS) have increased risk for psychiatric disorders. However, while medical geneticists self-report discussing psychiatric features of 22qDS with families (though often only when the child is older), most parents of children with 22qDS report receiving information about the psychiatric manifestations of 22qDS from non-medical sources. In an attempt to reconcile these previous findings, we sought to objectively determine the frequency with which medical geneticists discuss the potential psychiatric manifestations of 22qDS: (i) in letters to referring physicians and (ii) with families, and to explore plans for follow-up. We abstracted data from charts of patients with 22qDS who were referred to a single medical genetics center between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2012. Psychiatric disorders were discussed in consult letters to referring physicians for n = 57 (46%) of the 125 patients who met inclusion criteria-making them less frequently discussed than all other features of 22qDS. Despite exhaustive review of charts, the content of discussions with families was typically unclear. Follow-up in medical genetics was suggested for 50 people but only 18 (36%) of these patients returned. Disclosure of psychiatric features of 22qDS to families is necessary so that psychiatric disorders can be identified in time for early intervention to be implemented to achieve better prognosis for those affected. These empiric data offer some explanation as to why psychiatric services are underused by individuals with 22qDS.

International Policies on Sharing Genomic Research Results with Relatives: Approaches to Balancing Privacy with Access

Returning genetic research results to relatives raises complex issues. In order to inform the U.S. debate, this paper analyzes international law and policies governing the sharing of genetic research results with relatives and identifies key themes and lessons. The laws and policies from other countries demonstrate a range of approaches to balancing individual privacy and autonomy with family access for health benefit, offering important lessons for further development of approaches in the United States.

Returning a Research Participant's Genomic Results to Relatives: Analysis and Recommendations

Genomic research results and incidental findings with health implications for a research participant are of potential interest not only to the participant, but also to the participant's family. Yet investigators lack guidance on return of results to relatives, including after the participant's death. In this paper, a national working group offers consensus analysis and recommendations, including an ethical framework to guide investigators in managing this challenging issue, before and after the participant's death.

Research Recruitment of Adult Survivors of Neonatal Infections: Is There a Role for Parental Consent?

Research on competent adult subjects does not require the consent of anyone beyond that of the adult subject. This case is complicated, however, because the targeted subjects were initially enrolled by their parents in a neonatal study and because the focus of the study, genital herpes simplex virus (HSV), carries significant stigma in the community. In considering the ethical issue of directly approaching the young adults for participation in this research, there are three key themes that need to be evaluated and considered: 1) the importance of the research for anticipatory guidance about the long-term impact of neonatal HSV; 2) the concerns of parents in disclosing the diagnosis; and 3) the interests of affected teens/young adults and their future partners.

Attitudes of physicians and patients towards disclosure of genetic information to spouse and first-degree relatives: a case study from Turkey

Background

When considering the principle of medical confidentiality, disclosure of genetic information constitutes a special case because of the impact that this information can have on the health and the lives of relatives. The aim of this study is to explore the attitudes of Turkish physicians and patients about sharing information obtained from genetic tests.

Methods

The study was carried out in Kocaeli, Turkey. Participants were either paediatricians and gynaecologists registered in Kocaeli, or patients coming to the genetic diagnosis centre for karyotype analysis in 2008. A self-administered paper questionnaire was given to the physicians, and face-to-face structured interviews were conducted with patients. We used a case study involving a man who was found to be a balanced chromosome carrier as a result of a test conducted after his first baby was born with Down's syndrome. However, he refused to share this information with his wife or his siblings. Percentages of characteristics and preferences of the participants were calculated, and the results were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis test.

Results

A total of 155 physicians (68% response rate) and 104 patients (46% response rate) were participated in the study. Twenty-six percent of physicians and 49% of patients believed that genetic information belongs to the whole family. When participants were asked with whom genetic information should be shared for the case study, most of the physicians and patients thought the physician should inform the spouse (79%, 85%, respectively). They were less likely to support a physician informing a sibling (41%, 53%, respectively); whereas, many thought the testee has an obligation to inform siblings (70%, 94%, respectively).

Conclusions

Although Turkey’s national regulations certainly protect the right of privacy of the testee, the participants in our study appear to believe that informing the spouse, who is not personally at risk of serious damage, is the physician’s responsibility, while informing siblings, is the testee’s responsibility. Therefore we believe that opening ethical discussions with clinicians about the sharing of genetic information, establishing guidelines for practice and sharing these guidelines and the reasons behind them with the wider population, will help to pre-empt ethical dilemmas.