Article Text
Abstract
In this paper we question whether the concept of "genetic privacy" is a contradiction in terms. And, if so, whether the implications of such a conclusion, inevitably impact on how society comes to perceive privacy and responsibility generally. Current law and ethical discourse place a high value on self-determination and the rights of individuals. In the medical sphere, the recognition of patient "rights" has resulted in health professionals being given clear duties of candour and frankness. Dilemmas arise, however, when patients decline to know relevant information or, knowing it, refuse to share it with others who may also need to know. This paper considers the notions of interconnectedness and responsibility to others which are brought to the fore in the genetic sphere and which challenge the primacy afforded to personal autonomy. It also explores the extent to which an individual's perceived moral obligations can or should be enforced.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- New European guidelines for the use of stored human biological materials in biomedical research
- The right not to know: an autonomy based approach
- Consent for anaesthesia
- How should doctors approach patients? A Confucian reflection on personhood
- “I can put the medicine in his soup, Doctor!”
- Privacy, autonomy and direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a response to Vayena
- The bioethical principles and Confucius’ moral philosophy
- From proband to provider: is there an obligation to inform genetic relatives of actionable risks discovered through direct-to-consumer genetic testing?
- “Not safe” is not enough: smokers have a right to know more than there is no safe tobacco product
- How shared is shared decision-making? A care-ethical view on the role of partner and family