Reconsidering the duty to warn genetically at-risk relatives

The duty to warn genetically at-risk relatives of patients is one of the most misunderstood legal and ethical issues affecting clinical genetics. The legal doctrines are often associated with three state appellate court cases beginning in the mid-1990s. Since the HIPAA Privacy Rule went into effect in 2003, the duty to warn must be accomplished by warning the patient of the genetic nature of a diagnosed disorder or genetic risk and the necessity of warning at-risk relatives. Health-care providers are neither required nor permitted to warn at-risk relatives without the consent of their patients. Having warnings issued by the patient most closely aligns with traditional ethical principles and the interests of the parties. Physicians and other health-care providers can assist their patients by preparing jargon-free explanations of the genetic risk and offering consultation or referral services. In the future, the need for warnings is less likely to be triggered by diagnoses and more likely to be based on predictive information derived from genome sequencing and other technologies and data sources.     

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.     

Duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease: genetic counselors' clinical experience

When a patient refuses to inform relatives of their risk for genetic disease, the genetic healthcare professional is faced with conflicting ethical obligations. On one side of the issue is the obligation to respect and protect patients' right to privacy. On the other side is the obligation to prevent harm and promote the welfare of the family members, which suggests a responsibility to warn at-risk relatives, even without the patient's consent. In an effort to examine the actual clinical impact of this issue, we conducted a pilot study that explored genetic counselors' experience with this conflict. A survey was developed and made available to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Questions were either multiple-choice responses or open-ended. Almost half of respondents (119/259; 46%) had had a patient refuse to notify an at-risk relative. The most commonly cited reasons for refusal were estranged family relationships, altering family dynamics, insurance discrimination, and employment discrimination, respectively. Of these 119 counselors, 24 (21%) reported that they seriously considered warning the at-risk relatives without patient consent, and one actually did disclose. Three factors consistently made the counselors less likely to disclose: their patient's potential emotional reaction, the relationship between the relative and patient, and the chance that the relative could be aware of the disease by another means. These results suggest that while the conflict is often encountered in clinical practice, it is rare that the situation remains unresolved to the extent that genetic counselors actually consider warning at-risk relatives. However, when the situation was encountered, the counselors in this study reported a lower rate of disclosure without consent than would have been anticipated based on previous studies that used hypothetical situations. It may be that counselors do not recognize a duty to warn at-risk relatives as integral to their role and professional obligations.     

Mexican geneticists'' opinions on disclosure issues

Here we discuss the opinion on disclosure issues (respect for confidentiality) of Mexican professionals working in clinical genetics. The information was obtained from a comprehensive survey on genetics, ethics and society organized by Wertz and Fletcher in 1993, in which geneticists from 37 nations participated. The responses to 18 questions from 64 of 89 (72%) geneticists invited to participate were analyzed for this paper. The questions were directed to investigate: a) disclosure of clinically relevant information in several situations such as testicular feminization syndrome, mosaic de novo balanced translocation in a fetus, or accidental discovery of non-paternity; b) the protection of patient's privacy from the spouse or blood relatives; and c) confidentiality in cases with high genetic risk to relatives. The results reveal significant disparity between general responses related to disclosure of all clinically relevant information and specific responses in particular cases. In addition, professionals appear to give higher priority to protecting the spouse, blood relatives or public safety, rather than the patient's confidentiality.     

Regulating the communication of genetic risk information: the Italian legal approach to questions of confidentiality and disclosure

Battistuzzi L, Ciliberti R, Forzano F, De Stefano F. Regulating the communication of genetic risk information: the Italian legal approach to questions of confidentiality and disclosure. Communication of genetic risk is a complex process in which the rights of the individual and those of relatives may conflict with regard to the information revealed by DNA testing. If patients who participate in clinical genetic testing refuse to share their genetic information with at-risk relatives, healthcare professionals need to reach a proper ethical balance between the right of individual patients regarding the confidentiality of their genetic test result and the right of families to be informed about their genetic risk. Rules and legislation in most countries generally protect the confidentiality of medical information but allow limited disclosure of genetic test results without the patient's consent in specific cases when certain conditions are met. The aim of this article is to draw attention to how Italian policymakers have attempted to balance protection of autonomy and confidentiality, and protection of health by means of a hybrid instrument. Furthermore, we show that some of the requirements of that instrument depart from the most widely recognized standards for non-consensual disclosure of genetic risk information, while at the same time allowing an unusually high level of discretion to healthcare professionals involved in genetic counseling and testing.     

Transmitting balanced translocation carrier information within families: a follow-up study

Approximately 1 of 500 individuals is a carrier of a balanced chromosome translocation. Since many translocations are inherited, many (but not all) relatives of carriers have a need to be informed of their potential carrier status. Presently, no data are available as to what extent individuals identified as balanced carriers inform at-risk relatives of the problem. We interviewed 12 balanced translocation carriers to learn whether such information had been transmitted to relatives. The 12 propositi had 36 surviving sibs and 21 surviving parents. Of the 36 sibs, 32 were informed of their risk. The four sibs not informed were from two families. Only 16 of the 32 informed sibs had subsequent carrier testing. Of the 21 surviving parents, 14 were told by their children of their carrier status; subsequently, three parent couples were tested. This survey provides data showing that individuals do not always disclose genetic risk information to relatives. Therefore, genetic professionals need to determine if they have a duty to transmit such information to at-risk relatives in light of the harm that may occur when information is withheld.     

Duty to disclose in medical genetics: a legal perspective.

As technical knowledge and public information in medical genetics continue to expand, the geneticist may expect to be held responsible for informing patients and clients about new developments in research and diagnosis. The long legal evolution of the physician's duty to disclose, and more recent findings of a physician's duty to recall former patients to inform them about newly discovered risks of treatment, indicate that medical geneticists may have a duty to disclose both current and future information about conditions that are or could be inherited. Recent case law supports findings of professional liability for both present and future disclosure, even in the absence of an active physician-patient relationship. The requirement of candid and complete disclosure will affect the counseling approach in testing for deleterious genes and in providing medical treatment for minors with hereditary diseases. Finding a duty to recall may impose further professional burdens on the geneticist to reach beyond the immediate counseling arena and to recontact patients, perhaps years after their initial visit to genetics clinic.     

Disclosure of genetic risk in the family: A survey of the Flemish general population

ObjectivesResults from genomic sequencing often have implications not just for patients but also for their relatives. To date, there are no studies in Belgium exploring whether potential relatives would want to be informed of a genetic risk in the family and their preferences on different approaches to disclosure.MethodsWe surveyed the attitudes of the Flemish general population (n = 407) towards receiving genetic information from their family members, including attitudes towards breaches in confidentiality, preferences for who communicates genetic risk and how the information is communicated, and policy approaches to nondisclosure.ResultsMost participants wanted to be informed of their genetic risk and receive genetic testing to confirm their diagnosis. Most preferred to be informed of genetic risk by a close family member, but that when given the choice between a distant family member and a clinician, most participants preferred to be contacted by a clinician.ConclusionIn Belgium there is currently no clear legal pathway for clinicians to directly initiate contact with at-risk relatives, but the responses from members of the Flemish population analyzed in this study indicate that this approach to disclosure of genetic risk deserves further consideration. Our findings indicate that the general population would support legislation allowing clinicians to inform relatives even in cases where the patient did not want to inform them. As this is not currently allowed in Belgium, policy alternatives should be considered.     

The duty to warn at‐risk relatives—The experience of genetic counselors and medical geneticists

Studies published over 15 years ago surveyed genetic counselors (GC) and medical geneticists (MG) to examine their clinical experiences with the conflict of “duty to warn” versus patient confidentiality. Federal and state laws pertaining to medical professionals' duty to warn have since been implemented following the publications of these studies. Using a merged version of surveys employed in the prior studies, this study seeks to understand clinicians' current decision‐making process when faced with patient refusal to inform at‐risk relatives, as well as their familiarity with and opinions of laws and guidelines covering this issue. Consistent with the previous studies, the majority of MG and almost half of GC experience patient refusal. Significantly, fewer MG and GC believe they had a duty to warn their patients' relatives of genetic risk. Only 8% of participants believe current guidelines effectively address the issue of duty to warn. Participant awareness of federal or state laws regulating the disclosure of genetic information remains low. The conflict of duty to warn remains a shared experience among genetics professionals, and resources are needed to facilitate informed decision‐making. Participants' opinions of current policies and clinical decisions may guide professional actions regarding duty to warn.     

Duty to disclose in medical genetics: A legal perspective

As technical knowledge and public information in medical genetics continue to expand, the geneticist may expect to be held responsible for informing patients and clients about new developments in research and diagnosis. The long legal evolution of the physician's duty to disclose, and more recent findings of a physician's duty to recall former patients to inform them about newly discovered risks of treatment, indicate that medical geneticists may have a duty to disclose both current and future information about conditions that are or could be inherited. Recent case law supports findings of professional liability for both present and future disclosure, even in the absence of an active physician-patient relationship. The requirement of candid and complete disclosure will affect the counseling approach in testing for deleterious genes and in providing medical treatment for minors with hereditary diseases. Finding a duty to recall may impose further professional burdens on the geneticist to reach beyond the immediate counseling arena and to recontact patients, perhaps years after their initial visit to genetics clinic.     

Ethical considerations of biomarker use in neurodegenerative diseases—A case study of Alzheimer's disease

A major issue in current Alzheimer research presents in a growing dysbalance between a swiftly advancing biological marker and diagnostic research field (including advances in genetic research towards genetic profiling), key aspects of which have already found their way into newly proposed diagnostic criteria and international clinical dementia guidelines, and still rather limited and stagnating therapeutic and preventive options for physicians and patients worldwide. While Alzheimer's disease (AD) to date can be diagnosed with high accuracy years ahead of the late stage clinical syndromal dementia manifestation supported by biomarker guided detection of AD-characteristic pathophysiological features, there are currently no approved preventive or disease-modifying therapies available and the existing approved symptomatic therapy options provide only modest effect sizes in already demented patients without affecting the overall course and progression of the chronically progressive and complex brain disease. This unsatisfactory situation brings along a number of important ethical issues that need to be addressed. We outline some of the relevant ethical implications mainly related to the patient's best interest as well as to the patient's autonomy in the specific context of medical, psychological and social consequences of predicting AD using multi-modal biological markers. Consent, disclosure, or failure to disclose, information from genetic and predictive biomarker results raises significant ethical concerns among IRBs, regulators and advocacy groups. With the swift advances in ever earlier detection, diagnosis and classification in AD, a worldwide debate on ethical issues and consensus processes to reach a common ethical framework is warranted to safely and responsibly bring the best possible diagnostic measures as early as possible to patients and to the health care system.     

Reasonable expectations of privacy in non-disclosure of familial genetic risk: What is it reasonable to expect?

Where there is conflict between a patient's interests in non-disclosure of their genetic information to relatives and the relative's interest in knowing the information because it indicates their genetic risk, clinicians have customarily been able to protect themselves against legal action by maintaining confidence even if, professionally, they did not consider this to be the right thing to do. In ABC v St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust ([2017] EWCA Civ 336) the healthcare team recorded their concern about the wisdom of the patient's decision to withhold genetic risk information from his relative, but chose to respect what they considered to be an unwise choice. Even though professional guidance considers that clinicians have the discretion to breach confidence where they believe this to be justified, (Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of Pathologists and the British Society of Human Genetics, 2006; GMC, 2017) clinicians find it difficult to exercise this discretion in line with their convictions against the backdrop of the legal prioritisation of the duty to maintain confidence. Thus, the professional discretion is not being freely exercised because of doubts about the legal protection available in the event of disclosure. The reliance on consent as the legal basis for setting aside the duty of confidence often vetoes sharing information with relatives. This paper argues that an objective approach based on privacy, rather than a subjective consent-based approach, would give greater freedom to clinicians to exercise the discretion which their professional guidance affords.     

Disclosures of Huntington disease risk within families: patterns of decision-making and implications

Patterns of disclosure of Huntington disease risk and genetic test results among family members are important, but have been underexplored. We interviewed 21 individuals in-depth - eight mutation-positive for HD, four mutation-negative, and nine not tested - for 2 hr each. Within families, critical questions arose of what, when, and to whom to disclose, and what to do post-disclosure. Interviewees wrestled with dilemmas of what to tell (e.g., suspicions vs. confirmed symptoms; initiation vs. completion of testing; partial vs. indirect information), how to disclose (e.g., planning in advance vs. "blurting out" information in arguments), and whether and how to tell extended family members. Questions arose of when to tell (i.e., to avoid disclosing "too early" or "too late"). Similarities and differences emerged related to types of relationships (e.g., parents telling offspring vs. offspring telling parents vs. siblings telling each other). Individuals often disclosed because of perceived duty to foster the health of their family members, enabling these others to pursue appropriate medical evaluation, if desired. Yet tensions arose because the information could burden these members, who also have rights to remain "in denial" if they wish and not discuss the topic or pursue testing. Post-disclosure, dilemmas emerged of whether and how much to encourage family members to pursue testing. These data shed important light on critical issues that have received little, if any, attention concerning what, how, and when disclosure occurs, and have key implications for at-risk individuals, genetic counselors, and other health care workers (HCWs), and for future research. At-risk individuals would benefit from considering these issues in advance. HCWs need to realize that these decisions are multi-faceted. Future research can explore whether, when, how, and how often HCWs raise these issues with individuals.     

Genetic knowledge and moral responsibility: ambiguity at the interface of genetic research and clinical practice

Despite a rapidly expanding literature on the issue of duty to warn at-risk relatives in the context of clinical genetic testing, little has been written on parallel issues with regard to the management of genetic research results. Some might view this lack as an indication that there is little to discuss in this regard. That is, standard practice is that data obtained through medical research should not be treated as though they are clinically relevant, and this standard should hold for genetic research as well. This paper challenges this conclusion and its underlying assumptions. We argue that the line between genetic research and clinical practice is often ambiguous. In some cases, research data gathered from a very small number of subjects could have immediate clinical implications. Hence, it is unethical for genetic researchers to absolve themselves of clinical responsibilities for research subjects and/or their families, on the grounds that the data were obtained for research purposes. Indeed, we argue that it could well be unethical to embark on some forms of genetic research unless advance arrangements have been made for genetic counseling and clinical follow-up. Furthermore, in some cases, it might be unethical to enroll subjects in studies if the subjects are unwilling to receive their individual results.     

Genetic professionals' reports of nondisclosure of genetic risk information within families

Patients attending genetic clinics are often the main gatekeepers of information for other family members. There has been much debate about the circumstances under which professionals may have an obligation, or may be permitted, to pass on personal genetic information about their clients but without their consent to other family members. We report findings from the first prospective study investigating the frequency with which genetics professionals become concerned about the failure of clients to pass on such information to their relatives. In all, 12 UK and two Australian regional genetic services reported such cases over 12 months, including details of actions taken by professionals in response to the clients' failure to disclose information. A total of 65 cases of non-disclosure were reported, representing <1% of the genetic clinic consultations in the collaborating centres during the study period. These included 39 cases of the failure of parents not passing full information to their adult offspring, 22 cases where siblings or other relatives were not given information and four cases where information was withheld from partners -- including former and prospective partners. Professionals reported clients' reasons for withholding information as complex, more often citing concern and the desire to shield relatives from distress rather than poor family relationships. In most cases, the professionals took further steps to persuade their clients to make a disclosure but in no instance did the professional force a disclosure without the client's consent.     

Patient self-disclosure: a review of the research

Research shows that whereas most patients disclose deeply personal experiences in therapy, a significant proportion conceal some significant information. Findings also indicate that there are several categories of nondisclosed information (secrets, things left unsaid, and client reactions); that patients tend to withhold immediately experienced negative reactions; that disliked characteristics of oneself and parents are among the most thoroughly discussed issues in therapy while sex, aggression, and personal failure are least discussed; that men and women disclose to the same extent and on similar topics; that shame inhibits disclosure of negative affect; that a strong therapeutic alliance, overall tendency to be disclosing, and time in therapy facilitate disclosure; and that the discrepancy between disclosure and patients' ratings of salience of disclosure is a more powerful predictor of outcome than disclosure alone.     

Increased genetic counseling support improves communication of genetic information in families

PurposeTo determine whether the provision of additional genetic counseling support could improve the uptake of genetic services by “at-risk” relatives of probands.MethodsThe Tasmanian Clinical Genetics Service implemented a specific counseling intervention to a cohort of patients who were diagnosed with a genetic condition with familial implications and compared this with a control cohort who had not experienced the specific counseling intervention. The study involved 150 family members in 19 different kindreds across the two cohorts. The principal outcome measure was the proportion of at-risk relatives who had made contact with the clinical genetics service within 2 years of the diagnosis in the index patient.ResultsThe proportion of at-risk relatives who made contact with the genetics service was 61% in the intervention cohort compared with 36% in the control cohort (P = 0.01). After controlling for the gender of the at-risk relatives, relatives in the intervention cohort were 2.6 times more likely to make contact with the genetics service (P = 0.02).ConclusionsThe provision of increased genetic counseling support significantly increased the proportion of at-risk relatives who made contact with the genetic service. This suggests that the communication of genetic information within families can be enhanced by the provision of increased genetic counseling support.     

China's genetic services providers' attitudes towards several ethical issues: a cross-cultural survey

Attitudes towards ethical, legal and social issues in genetic research and practice were investigated in 402 genetic services providers from 30 provinces and autonomous regions in China. This was done using a Chinese version of an international survey questionnaire on ethics and genetics that has been circulated in 37 nations. In all, 255 study participants completed questionnaires (63%). The majority of the respondents (89%) reported that they agreed with the current Chinese laws and regulations on termination of pregnancy for genetic abnormalities and non-medical indications, on the basis of considerations of population control and family planning. More than half the respondents opposed sex selection by prenatal diagnosis in the absence of an X-linked disorder. However, most of them (86%) would prefer directive counseling. More than half would agree to disclose genetic information to relatives at risk, and would permit third parties such as law enforcement agencies, spouse/partner, blood relatives, employers involving public safety, life and health insurers to access stored DNA without consent. The majority (73%-98%) also thought that DNA fingerprinting should be required for prisoners convicted of or charged with crimes, members of armed forces and all newborns. Although these are only the first part of the results of our international survey, they provide an initial basis for international discussion on ethics and genetics in China.     

Should healthcare providers have a duty to warn family members of individuals with an HNPCC‐causing mutation? A survey of patients from the Ontario Familial Colon Cancer Registry

Background

As genetic testing becomes more common and increasingly intertwined with medical care, the issues of genetic privacy and doctor–patient confidentiality are being examined. Hereditary non‐polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is a genetic predisposition to colorectal and certain other cancers. Effective screening that can prevent colorectal cancer is an important incentive for genetic testing.

Methods

A survey regarding the duty to warn family members of the risks associated with an HNPCC‐causing mutation was mailed to 227 participants in the Ontario Familial Colon Cancer Registry (OFCCR). To our knowledge, the opinions of patients on this subject have not been reported previously in the literature. Responses were analysed quantitatively using the SAS system and qualitatively by the review of written comments.

Results

Completed surveys were returned by 105 participants, with a response rate of 46.3%. The majority felt a personal responsibility to warn relatives, but there was no significant agreement that doctors or genetic counsellors should have a duty to warn relatives without a patient''s permission.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing genetic testing for HNPCC generally understand that relatives could benefit from being informed of genetic risk, but may not be willing or able to inform each family member. Healthcare professionals should engage patients in a discussion of familial implications before genetic testing. An agreement should be formulated regarding which of the relatives should be informed. Patients should be encouraged to personally disseminate the information, given the unrealistic burden on practitioners to perform this task and patients'' preference for control over the information.Genetic information is distinct from much medical information because of its familial nature¹ and its applicability to predicting future health.² It has been suggested that with increased availability of health‐related genetic information, individuals should be aware of and accept responsibility to share genetic test results with their family members.^3,4,5 If a patient does not inform at‐risk relatives about a genetic condition that could confer serious harm, the duty to warn may potentially be extended to the healthcare provider.^4,6,7 More clarity is needed to define if and when there is a legal and/or ethical duty to warn family members at risk, especially since this violates autonomy and confidentiality and would probably present an impracticable burden to health professionals.Genetic testing should be performed with informed consent after meeting with a genetics professional to discuss risks, benefits and limitations. Certain laws have been enacted to protect genetic privacy.^2,8,9 The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act¹⁰ states that “genetic information” cannot be used by health plans for discrimination. As genetic testing continues to provide information relevant to medical care, it will become increasingly difficult, and perhaps less beneficial to patients, to keep the results confidential.Healthcare providers have been encouraged to discuss with patients the implications of disclosing test results to family members during pretest counselling.¹¹ Acceptance of personal responsibility should reduce the risk of disagreements once results are available. Also, previous research has shown that patients prefer to have control over the process of disclosing genetic information to their relatives.⁹The aim of this study was to survey participants of the Ontario Familial Colon Cancer Registry (OFCCR) regarding their duty to warn family members about a hereditary non‐polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)‐causing mutation. The survey was designed to determine opinions about personal responsibility, barriers to communication and the responsibility of health professionals, particularly if the participant was unwilling or unable to inform relatives.     

The responses of research participants and their next of kin to receiving feedback of genetic test results following participation in the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study

PurposeThe generation of clinically significant genetic data during research studies raises a number of ethical issues about the feedback of this information to research participants. Little is known about research participants’ experiences of this practice.MethodsThis qualitative interview study investigated research participants’ (n = 10) or their nominated next of kin’s (relatives) (n = 15) experiences of receiving BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test information following participation in the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study.ResultsInterviewees had mixed responses to receiving feedback. The participants of the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study were more positive about receiving feedback, acknowledging that the genetic information may be useful for their kin. Relatives frequently described themselves as initially distressed at receiving feedback, particularly those who were unaware of the participation of their mothers in the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study. The participants of the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study and their relatives expressed an intention to disseminate the information to relatives following confirmation of the result.ConclusionWe suggest that research participants be encouraged to discuss their participation with family members from the outset. We also outline a number of different strategies for providing feedback to research participants and their next of kin that may lessen the immediate negative impact of receiving feedback of research results.Genet Med 2013:15(6):458–465