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.     

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.     

Disclosing genetic information to family members without consent: Five Australian case studies

Genetic risk information is relevant to individual patients and also their blood relatives. Health practitioners (HPs) routinely advise patients of the importance of sharing genetic information with family members, especially for clinically actionable conditions where prevention is possible. However, some patients refuse to share genetic results with at-risk relatives, and HPs must choose whether to use or disclose genetic information without consent. This requires an understanding of their legal and ethical obligations, which research shows many HPs do not have. A recent UK case held that HPs have a duty to a patient's relatives where there is a proximate relationship, to conduct a balancing exercise of the benefit of disclosure of the genetic risk information to the relative against the interest of the patient in maintaining confidentiality. In Australia, there is currently no legal duty to disclose genetic information to a patient's at-risk relatives, but there are laws and guidelines governing unconsented use/disclosure of genetic information. These laws are inconsistent across different Australian states and health contexts, requiring greater harmonisation.Here we provide an up-to-date and clinically accessible resource summarising the laws applying to HPs across Australia, and outline five Australian case studies which have arisen in clinical genetics services, regarding the disclosure of genetic results to relatives without consent. The issues addressed here are relevant to any Australian HP with access to genetic information, as well as HPs and policy-makers in other jurisdictions considering these issues.     

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.     

Ethics and medical genetics in the United States: a national survey

The approaches of 295 medical geneticists in the United States to 14 clinical problems and 3 screening situations that required a moral choice are summarized. These data are part of a survey of 682 geneticists in 19 nations. Of 490 U.S. geneticists asked to participate, 295 (60%) returned anonymous detailed questionnaires. There was strong (greater than 75%) consensus that preserving the mother's confidentiality overrides disclosure of true paternity; that conflicting test results, new/controversial interpretations of results, and ambiguous/artifactual results should be disclosed; that artificial insemination by donor, adoption, taking chances, contraception, sterilization, and in-vitro fertilization with a donor egg should be presented as reproductive options to carriers of disorders not diagnosable prenatally; that prenatal diagnosis should be performed for patients who refuse abortion and for maternal anxiety in the absence of medical indications; that screening in the workplace should be voluntary. There was no consensus about disclosure of a diagnosis of Huntington disease or hemophilia A to relatives at risk, against the patient's wishes, or about disclosure of parental translocations. Geneticists in the U.S. differed from 18 other nations in presenting surrogate motherhood as an option (67%); willingness to perform prenatal diagnosis for sex selection or refer (62%); and disclosure of XY genotype in a female (62%). Men were more likely than women to say that they would give directive counseling. Women were more likely than men to say that they would perform prenatal diagnosis for maternal anxiety or for sex selection.     

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.     

Health-care professionals’ responsibility to patients’ relatives in genetic medicine: a systematic review and synthesis of empirical research

PurposeThe extent of the responsibility of health-care professionals (HCPs) to ensure that patients’ relatives are told of their risk is unclear. Current international guidelines take confidentiality to the individual patient as the default position, but some suggest that disclosure could be default and genetic information could be conceptualized as familial.MethodsOur systematic review and synthesis of 17 studies explored the attitudes of HCPs, patients, and the public regarding the extent of HCPs’ responsibility to relatives with respect to disclosure.ResultsHealth-care professionals generally felt a responsibility to patients’ relatives but perceived a variety of reasons why it would be difficult to act on this responsibility. Public/patient views were more wide-ranging. Participants identified several competing and overlapping arguments for and against HCP disclosure: guidelines do not permit/mandate it, privacy, medical benefit, impact on family dynamics, quality of communication, and respecting autonomy.ConclusionWe argue that HCPs can sometimes share genetic information without breaching confidentiality and that they could factor into their considerations the potential harm to family dynamics of nondisclosure. However, we need more nuanced research about their responsibilities to relatives, particularly as genomic tests are used more frequently in clinical practice.     

Stakeholders in psychiatry and their attitudes toward receiving pertinent and incident findings in genomic research

Increasingly more psychiatric research studies use whole genome sequencing or whole exome sequencing. Consequently, researchers face difficult questions, such as which genomic findings to return to research participants and how. This study aims to gain more knowledge on the attitudes among potential research participants and health professionals toward receiving pertinent and incidental findings. A cross‐sectional online survey was developed to investigate the attitudes among research participants toward receiving genomic findings. A total of 2,637 stakeholders responded: 241 persons with mental disorders, 671 relatives, 1,623 blood donors, 74 psychiatrists, and 28 clinical geneticists. Stakeholders wanted both pertinent findings (95%) and incidental findings (91%) to be made available for research participants. The majority (77%) stated that researchers should not actively search for incidental findings. Persons with mental disorders and relatives were generally more positive about receiving any kind of findings than clinical geneticists and psychiatrists. Compared with blood donors, persons with mental disorders reported to be more positive about receiving raw genomic data and information that is not of serious health importance. Psychiatrists and clinical geneticists were less positive about receiving genomic findings compared with blood donors. The attitudes toward receiving findings were very positive. Stakeholders were willing to refrain from receiving incidental information if it could compromise the research. Our results suggest that research participants consider themselves as altruistic participants. This study offers valuable insight, which may inform future programs aiming to develop new strategies to target issues relating to the return of findings in genomic research.     

Disclosure of genetic information to family members: a systematic review of normative documents

PurposeFindings from genomic sequencing can have important implications for patients and family members. Yet, when a patient does not consent to the disclosure of genetic information to relatives, it is unclear how health-care professionals (HCPs) should balance their responsibilities toward patients and their family members and whether breaches in confidentiality are warranted.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of normative documents to understand how HCPs should discuss and facilitate family disclosure, and what should be done in cases where the patient does not consent to disclosure.ResultsWe analyzed 35 documents from advisory committees at the national, European, and international level. We identified discrepancies regarding the recommended role of HCPs in disclosure. While almost all normative documents supported the disclosure of genetic information without patient consent in limited conditions, the conditions for disclosure were often not well defined. Documents provided varying degrees of information regarding what actions HCPs must take in such situations.ConclusionOur findings present concerns regarding the ability of these normative documents to guide HCPs’ decision making around the disclosure of genetic information to family members. Clearer guidance outlining the responsibilities and acceptability of disclosure is necessary to facilitate disclosure of genetic information to family members.     

Perspectives of clinical genetics professionals toward genome sequencing and incidental findings: a survey study

The introduction of clinical genome‐wide sequencing raises complex issues regarding the management of incidental findings. However, there is a lack of empirical studies assessing views of providers involved in potential disclosure of such findings. In an anonymous survey of 279 clinical genetics professionals, we found that the vast majority of participants agreed that they were interested in knowing about clinically actionable incidental findings in themselves (96%) and their child (99%), and they reported that these types of findings should be disclosed in adult (96%) and minor (98%) patients. Approximately three‐fourths agreed that they were personally interested in knowing about an adult‐onset clinically actionable disease (78%) and a childhood‐onset non‐clinically actionable disease (75%) in their child. A similar percentage of participants (70%) felt that these two types of findings should be disclosed to patients. Forty‐four percent of participants wanted to know about an incidental finding that indicates an adult‐onset non‐clinically actionable condition in themselves and 31% wanted to know about this type of information in their child. Findings from this study revealed participants' views highly dependent on clinical actionability. Further research is needed with a broader population of geneticists to increase generalizability, and with diverse patients to assess their perspectives about results disclosure from clinical sequencing.     

Ethics and medical genetics in the United States. A national survey

The approaches of 295 medical geneticists in the United States to 14 clinical problems and 3 screening situations that required a moral choice aresummarized. These data are part of a survey of 682 geneticists in 19 nations. Of 490 U.S. geneticists asked to participate, 295 (60%) returned anonymous detailed questionnaires. There was strong (> 75%) consensus that preserving the mother's confidentiality overrides disclosure of true paternity; that conflicting test results, new/controversial interpretations of results, and ambiguous/artifactual results should be disclosed; that artificial insemination by donor, adoption, taking chances, contraception, sterilization, and in-vitro fertilization with a donor egg should be presented as reproductive options to carriers of disorders not diagnosable prenatally; that prenatal diagnosis should be performed for patients who refuse abortion and for maternal anxiety in the absence of medical indications; that screening in the workplace should be voluntary. There was no consensus about disclosure of a diagnosis of Huntington disease or hemophilia A to relatives at risk, against the patient's wishes, or about disclosure of parental translocations. Geneticists in the U.S. differed from 18 other nations in presenting surrogate motherhood as an option (67%); willingness to perform prenatal diagnosis for sex selection or refer (62%); and disclosure of XY genotype in a female (62%). Men were more likely than women to say that they would give directive counseling. Women were more likely than men to say that they would perform prenatal diagnosis for maternal anxiety or for sex selection.     

Mexican geneticists’ views of ethical issues in genetics testing and screening. Are eugenic principles involved?

Herein we discuss Mexican geneticists' views of ethical issues in genetic testing and screening, analyzing whether eugenic principles are involved in this activity. The information was obtained from a comprehensive survey on genetics, ethics, and society organized by Wertz and Fletcher in 1993, in which 37 nations participated. The responses to 21 questions from 64 out of 89 (72%) geneticists invited to participate are analyzed in this paper. The questions were practically the same as those answered recently by a group of Chinese geneticists (Mao X. Chinese geneticists' views of ethical issues in genetic testing and screening: evidence for eugenics in China. Am J Hum Genet 1998: 63: 688-695), who work in a country where the furtherance of eugenic principles is considered to be the goal of human genetics. We concluded that although there are many similarities in the answers from both countries, this is not indicative of Mexican geneticists pursuing eugenic goals because: a) there is no coercion involved; and b) there is no intention of improving the gene pool.     

Accuracy of recall of information about a cancer-predisposing BRCA1/2 gene mutation among patients and relatives

This observational study aimed to (i) compare the accuracy of information recalled by patients and relatives following genetic counselling about a newly identified BRCA1/2 mutation, (ii) identify differences in accuracy of information about genetics and hereditary cancer and (iii) investigate whether accuracy among relatives improved when information was provided directly by genetics health professionals. Semistructured interviews following results from consultations with 10 breast/ovarian cancer patients and 22 relatives were audio-recorded and transcribed. Information provided by the genetics health professional was tracked through the families and coded for accuracy. Accuracy was analysed using the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks test. Sources of information were tested using Spearman''s rank-order correlation coefficient. Fifty-three percent of the information recalled by patients was accurate. Accuracy of recall among relatives was significantly lower than that among patients (P=0.017). Both groups recalled a lower proportion of information about hereditary cancer than about genetics (P=0.005). Relatives who learnt the information from the patient alone recalled significantly less accurate information than those informed directly by genetics health professionals (P=0.001). Following genetic counselling about a BRCA1/2 mutation, accuracy of recall was low among patients and relatives, particularly about hereditary cancer. Multiple sources of information, including direct contact with genetics health professionals, may improve the accuracy of information among relatives.     

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.     

Attitudes of Mexican geneticists towards prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion

Prenatal diagnosis (PD) provides the physician information on whether the unborn fetus has a genetic or chromosomal disorder, and offers patients a new option: selective abortion. In the present study, we analyzed the answers Mexican geneticists provided to a few selected questions from a multi-national survey designed by Wertz and Fletcher [1988: Am J Hum Genet 42:592–600]. The selected questions were related to the use of PD, the acceptance of selective abortion, and the self-reported directiveness of counselling following the diagnosis of a fetal anomaly. Our results show that the great majority of Mexican geneticists participating in the study agree with PD when medically indicated, but not on free demand. Specific cases stimulated the group on thinking more than the general statements provided in the survey. Although the majority agreed that PD should be available to all women, when faced with cases of nonmorbid maternal anxiety, paternity testing, and sex selection, the proportion of geneticists willing to perform the test decreased substantially. When counselling patients on a fetal anomaly, the minority would be as unbiased as possible, and this seems to be the tendency in developing countries where counselling, as stated in the respondents' comments, reflects the belief that the goal of genetics is the prevention of or opposition to abortion. Counselling was influenced by the severity of the disorder. The geneticists' personal attitude toward abortion in the same situations was stronger than when counselling others. Analysis of directiveness in counselling for fetal anomaly showed that older geneticists, with more years of experience in medical genetics, were more likely to be neutral. When counselling directively, the group showed an overall direction toward continuing affected pregnancies. However, older geneticists and those with more than 10 years of practice were more likely than their younger counterparts to counsel towards terminating affected pregnancies. In personal situations of fetal disorder, the general tendency was to abort; however, geneticists seeing more than 5 patients per week, and those who believe that religion is important, were more likely to reject abortion. The sample is representative of Mexican geneticists, and the main limitation of this study is that the geneticists have very little experience in PD, and that their responses were mostly based on theory. However, their opinions may influence the demand and the availability of PD and abortion, as well as the possibility of legalization of abortion on the basis of a fetal defect. Am. J. Med. Genet. 75:426-431, 1998. © 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Disclosures of self-injurious thoughts and behaviors to parents in the context of adolescent therapy: A qualitative investigation

Self-injurious thoughts and behaviors (SITBs), including suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, and nonsuicidal self-injury, are highly prevalent among adolescents. Identifying adolescents at risk for SITBs relies on their disclosure, and these disclosures commonly occur in therapy context. Moreover, therapists often breach confidentiality to inform adolescents' parent or guardian when they disclose SITBs. Research has explored rates of and barriers to disclosure among adolescents, yet no studies have examined adolescents' experiences of disclosure in the therapy context. Further, no studies have examined adolescents' experiences when their parents are then informed. In this study, we examined qualitative responses from 1495 adolescents who had experienced a SITB disclosure in the therapy context. Qualitative questions included asking adolescents to describe how the SITB disclosure occurred, how their parents were informed, and their parents' reactions. Using open and axial coding, several themes emerged. Adolescents described therapist breaches of confidentiality as collaborative, noncollaborative, or unclear. Adolescents described their parents' affective responses, communication about SITBs, validating and invalidating responses, treatment-oriented responses, and ways that parents restricted their access to people, places, and activities. Findings have implications for the development of clinical guidelines when adolescents disclose SITBs in therapy and highlight areas for future research in adolescent SITB disclosure.     

Preferences of cardiologists and clinical geneticists for the future organization of genetic care in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a survey

In view of the increasing demands for genetic counselling and DNA diagnostics in cardiogenetics, the roles of cardiologists and clinical geneticists in the delivery of care need to be redefined. We investigated the preferences of both groups of professionals with regard to the future allocation of six cardiogenetic responsibilities in counselling and testing, using hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) as a prevalent model disease. In this cross-sectional survey, the participants were Dutch cardiologists (n = 643) and clinical geneticists (n = 60), all members of professional societies. Response rates were 33 and 82%, respectively. In both groups, the majority preferred to perform most of the tasks described above in collaboration. Informing HCM patients about the genetics of HCM and requesting DNA testing in symptomatic patients was viewed by 43 and 35% of cardiologists, respectively, as their sole responsibility, however, and 39 and 59% of clinical geneticists did not object to these views. Both groups felt that the task of discussing the consequences of HCM for offspring and that of discussing the results of DNA diagnostics should be shared or performed by clinical geneticists. Both groups considered co-ordination of family screening the sole responsibility of clinical geneticists. Opinions on who should request DNA diagnostics in asymptomatic relatives were divided: 86% of clinical geneticists considered it their exclusive responsibility, 10% of cardiologists believed that this task could be performed individually by either group and 30% preferred to collaborate. Most professionals said that they would appreciate education programmes and clinical guidelines. Both cardiologists and clinical geneticists prefer to share rather than divide most cardiogenetic responsibilities in caring for HCM patients. Consequently, capacity problems in both groups are to be expected. To safeguard current professional standards in genetic counselling and testing, deployment of non-medical personnel might be essential.     

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.     

Outcomes of a randomised controlled trial of a complex genetic counselling intervention to improve family communication

When an inherited genetic condition is diagnosed in an individual it has implications for other family members. Privacy legislation and ethical considerations can restrict health professionals from communicating directly with other family members, and so it is frequently the responsibility of the first person in a family to receive the diagnosis (the proband) to share this news. Communication of genetic information is challenging and many at-risk family members remain unaware of important information that may be relevant to their or their children''s health. We conducted a randomised controlled trial in six public hospitals to assess whether a specifically designed telephone counselling intervention improved family communication about a new genetic diagnosis. Ninety-five probands/parents of probands were recruited from genetics clinics and randomised to the intervention or control group. The primary outcome measure was the difference between the proportion of at-risk relatives who contacted genetics services for information and/or genetic testing. Audit of the family genetic file after 18 months revealed that 25.6% of intervention group relatives compared with 20.9% of control group relatives made contact with genetic services (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.70–2.42, P=0.40). Although no major difference was detected overall between the intervention and control groups, there was more contact in the intervention group where the genetic condition conferred a high risk to offspring (adjusted OR 24.0, 95% confidence interval 3.4–168.5, P=0.001). The increasing sophistication and scope of genetic testing makes it imperative for health professionals to consider additional ways of supporting families in communicating genetic information.