Online first
Current issue
Archive
Special Issues
About the Journal
Publication Ethics
Anti-Plagiarism system
Instructions for Authors
Instructions for Reviewers
Editorial Board
Editorial Office
Contact
Reviewers
All Reviewers
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
General Data Protection Regulation (RODO)
RESEARCH PAPER
Patient rights, risk, and responsibilities in the genetic era – a right to know, a right not to know, or a duty to know?
1
Department of Social Sciences, Karol Marcinkowski University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland
Corresponding author
Jan Domaradzki
Department of Social Sciences, Karol Marcinkowski University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland
Department of Social Sciences, Karol Marcinkowski University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2015;22(1):156-162
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Introduction and objective:
As genetics tests ordered by physicians have implications not only for patients but also their relatives, they create a bioethical dilemma for both clinicians and patients. Especially when a patient is reluctant to undergo the test, know the genetic risk, and share such information with others. While international biomedical law recognises the right not to know one’s genetic status, it has been criticised for many reasons. This paper outlines the arguments for and against the right not to know about genetic risk.
Abbreviated description of the state of knowledge:
Both medicine and bioethics acknowledge that information about genetic risk affects not only the individual but also other family members. Consequently, many argue that such information is not a private matter and should be regarded not as a right but as an obligation, or even a duty. Thus, it is emphasized that one’s right not to know is strictly related to the duty to inform others about any genetic risk. Yet others believe that constant proliferation of genetic testing and moralization of health issues poses a serious threat to patient rights and creates new opportunities for social surveillance and control. In both cases there can be observed an increasing ‘bioethecization’ of genetic discourse.
Summary:
The paper suggests that the developments in genetics result in the emergence of new molecular ethics which stress that individuals have a moral and political duty to undergo the test, know the risk, and disclose that information to others. Consequently, it may transform the right to know into a duty and poses the question whether in the genetic context individuals should have the right to remain ignorant. Finally, the paper argues that genetic literacy becomes a source of biological citizenship.
As genetics tests ordered by physicians have implications not only for patients but also their relatives, they create a bioethical dilemma for both clinicians and patients. Especially when a patient is reluctant to undergo the test, know the genetic risk, and share such information with others. While international biomedical law recognises the right not to know one’s genetic status, it has been criticised for many reasons. This paper outlines the arguments for and against the right not to know about genetic risk.
Abbreviated description of the state of knowledge:
Both medicine and bioethics acknowledge that information about genetic risk affects not only the individual but also other family members. Consequently, many argue that such information is not a private matter and should be regarded not as a right but as an obligation, or even a duty. Thus, it is emphasized that one’s right not to know is strictly related to the duty to inform others about any genetic risk. Yet others believe that constant proliferation of genetic testing and moralization of health issues poses a serious threat to patient rights and creates new opportunities for social surveillance and control. In both cases there can be observed an increasing ‘bioethecization’ of genetic discourse.
Summary:
The paper suggests that the developments in genetics result in the emergence of new molecular ethics which stress that individuals have a moral and political duty to undergo the test, know the risk, and disclose that information to others. Consequently, it may transform the right to know into a duty and poses the question whether in the genetic context individuals should have the right to remain ignorant. Finally, the paper argues that genetic literacy becomes a source of biological citizenship.
REFERENCES (50)
2.
Piątkowski W, Skrzypek M. The social nature of health and illness – evolution of research approaches in Polish classical medical sociology. Ann Agr Env Med. 2012; 19(4): 821–835.
3.
Mazur Allan. Biological explanation in sociology. Sociol Quart. 1978; 19(4): 604–613.
4.
Alper JS, Beckwith J. Genetic fatalism and social policy. The implications of behavior genetics research. Yale J Biol Med. 1993; 66: 511–524.
5.
Alper, JS, Ard C, Asch A, Beckwith J, Conrad P, Geller LN. The double-edged helix. Social implications of genetics in a diverse society. Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 2002.
6.
Conrad P, Gabe J. Sociological perspectives on the new genetics. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers 1999.
7.
Nelkin D, Tancredi L. Dangerous diagnostics. The social power of biological information. New York, Basic Books, 1989.
8.
Domaradzki J. Genetyzacja społeczeństwa. Społeczne konsekwencje nowej genetyki. Stud Socjol. 2012; 2(205): 7–26 (in Polish).
9.
Melendro-Oliver S. Shifting concepts of genetic disease. Sc Stud. 2004; 17(1): 20–33.
10.
Stempsey WE. The geneticization of diagnostics. Med Health Care Philos. 2006; 9(2): 193–200.
11.
Featherstone K, Atkinson P, Bharadwaj A, Clarke A. Risky relations: family, kinship and the new genetics. New York, Berg, 2006.
12.
Finkler K. The kin of the gene: the medicalization of family and kinship in American society. Curr Anthropol. 2001; 42(2): 235–263.
13.
Konrad M. From secrets of life to the life of secrets: tracing genetic knowledge as genealogical ethics in biomedical Britain. J R Anthrol Inst. 2003; 9(2): 339–358.
14.
Siemińska MJ. Genetyczne związki, rodzinne powiązania i społeczne więzi: o naturze zależności w obliczu wiedzy genetycznej. In: Chańska W, Hartman J. Bioetyka w zawodzie lekarza. Warszawa, Wolters Kluwer 2010. p. 226–237 (in Polish).
15.
Lippman A. Prenatal genetic testing and screening: constructing needs and reinforcing inequities. AJLM. 1991; 17(1–2): 15–50.
16.
Rothman BK. The tentative pregnancy: how amniocentesis changes the experience of motherhood. New York/London: Norton Company, 1993.
17.
Novas C, Rose N. Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual. Econ Soc. 2000; 29(4): 485–513.
18.
Greco M. Psychosomatic subjects and the ‘duty to be well’. Personal agency within. Econ Soc. 1993; 22(3): 357–372.
19.
Jennings B. Genetic literacy and citizenship: possibilities for deliberative democratic policymaking in science and medicine. Good Society 2004; 13(1): 38–44.
20.
Rose N. The politics of life itself: biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2007.
21.
Rose N, Novas C. Biological citizenship. In: Ong A, Collier S. Global assemblages: technology, politics, and ethics as anthropological problems, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing. 2004. p. 439–463.
22.
Hallowell N. Doing the right thing: genetic risk and responsibility. Sociol Health Ill. 1999; 21(5): 597–621.
23.
Lemke T. Disposition and determinism – genetic diagnostics in risk society. Sociol Rev. 2004; 52(4): 550–566.
24.
Arribas-Ayllon M, Sarangi S, Clarke A. Genetic testing. Accounts of autonomy, responsibility and blame. London, Routledge 2011.
25.
Parsons EP, Atkinson P. Lay constructions of genetic risk. Sociol Health Ill. 1992; 14(4):437–455.
26.
Cox SM, McKellin W. There’s this thing in our family: predictive testing and the social construction of risk for Huntington Disease. Sociol Health Ill. 1999; 21(5):622–646.
27.
Andorno R. The right not to know: an autonomy based approach. J Med Ethics. 2004; 30: 435–440.
28.
Bortolotti L, Widdows H. The right not to know: the case of psychiatric disorders. J Med Ethics. 2011; 37: 673–676.
29.
Harris J, Keywood K. Ignorance, information and autonomy. Theor Med. 2001; 22(5): 415–436.
30.
Laurie GT. In defence of ignorance: genetic information and the right not to know. Eur J Health Law. 1999; 6(2): 119–132.
31.
Rhodes R. Genetic links, family ties, and social bonds: rights and responsibilities in the face of genetic knowledge. J Med Philos. 1998; 23(1): 10–33.
32.
Shaw MW. Testing for the Huntington gene: a right to know, a right not to know, or a duty to know. Am J Med Genet. 1987; 26(2): 243–246.
33.
Sommerville A, English V. Genetic privacy: orthodoxy or oxymoron? J Med Ethics 1999; 25(2): 144–150.
34.
Takala T. The right to genetic ignorance confirmed. Bioethics. 1999; 13(3–4): 288–293.
35.
Takala T. Genetic ignorance and reasonable paternalism. Theor Med Bioeth. 2001; 22(5): 485–491.
36.
Takala T, Häyry M. Genetic ignorance, moral obligations and social duties. J Med Philos. 2000; 25(1): 107–113.
37.
Wilson J. To know or not to know? Genetic ignorance, autonomy and paternalism. Bioethics. 2005; 19(5–6): 492–504.
38.
Braun B. Biopolitics and the molecularization of life. Cult Geogr. 2007; 4(1):6–28.
39.
Mountcastle-Shah E, Tambor E, Bernhardt BA, Geller G, Karaliukas R, Ellison J, Rodgers L, Holtyman N. Assessing mass media reporting of disease-related genetic discoveries. Development of an instrument and initial findings. Sci Commun. 2003; 24(4):458–478.
40.
Hunt LM, Castañeda H, Voogd De KD. Do notions of risk inform patient choice? Lessons from a study of prenatal genetic counseling. Med Anthropol. 2006; 25(3):193–219.
41.
Gross SE, Shuval JT. On knowing and believing: prenatal genetic screening and resistance to ‘risk-medicine’. Health Risk Soc 2008; 10(6): 549–564.
42.
Armstrong N, Eborall H. The sociology of medical screening: critical perspectives, New Directions. Wiley-Blackwell 2012.
43.
Domaradzki J. ‘Homo geneticus’ jako ‘zoon genetikon’. Prawo do niewiedzy a obowiązekwiedzy w dobie ryzyka genetycznego. In: Synowiec-Piłat M, Łaska-Formejster A. Biologiczny wymiar życia populacji a jego socjologiczne interpretacje. Łódź, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego 2013. p. 15–34 (in Polish).
44.
Falk MJ, Dugan RB, O’Riordan MA, Matthews AL, Robin NH. Medical geneticists’ duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease. Am J Med Genet. 2003; 120A(3): 374–380.
45.
Savulescu J, Kahane G. The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics. 2009; 23(5): 274–290.
46.
Kapelańska-Pręgowska J. Prawne i bioetyczne aspekty testów genetycznych. Kraków, Wolters Kluwer 2011 (in Polish).
47.
Van Dijk T. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse Soc. 1993; 4(2): 249–283.
48.
Kelly SE, Choosing not to choose: reproductive responses of parents of children with genetic conditions or impairments. Soc Health Ill. 2009; 31(1): 81–97.
49.
Seavilleklein V. Challenging the rhetoric of choice in prenatal screening. Bioethics. 2009; 23(1): 68–77.
50.
Foucault M. Technologies of the self. In: Rainbow P. The essential works of Michel Foucault 1954–1984. New York, The New Press 1997.p.223–251.
| eISSN: | 1898-2263 |
| ISSN: | 1232-1966 |
Improvement of visual identification of the journal - task financed under the agreement No. 618/P-DUN/2019 by the Minister of Science and Higher Education allocated to the activities of disseminating science.
Generation of the DOI (Digital Object Identifier) - task financed under the agreement No. 618/P-DUN/2019 by the Minister of Science and Higher
© 2006-2024 Journal hosting platform by Bentus
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
