If a hereditary predisposition to colorectal cancer or breast cancer is diagnosed, most guidelines state that clinical geneticists should request index patients to inform their at-risk relatives about the existence of this condition in their family, thus enabling them to consider presymptomatic genetic testing. Those identified as mutation carriers can undertake strategies to reduce their risk of developing the disease or to facilitate early diagnosis. This procedure of informing relatives through the index patient has been criticised, as it results in relatively few requests for genetic testing, conceivably because a certain number of relatives remain uninformed. This pilot study explored attitudes toward informing family members and relevant practices among clinical geneticists. In general, clinical geneticists consider it to be in the interests of family members to be informed and acknowledge that this goal is not accomplished by current procedures. The reasons given for maintaining present practices despite this include clinical ‘mores’, uncertainty about the legal right of doctors to inform family members themselves, and, importantly, a lack of resources. We discuss these reasons from an ethical point of view and conclude that they are partly uninformed and inconsistent. If informing relatives is considered to be in their best interests, clinical geneticists should consider informing relatives themselves. In the common situation in which index patients do not object to informing relatives, no legal obstacles prevent geneticists from doing so. An evaluation of these findings among professionals may lead to a more active approach in clinical practice.
- Hereditary cancer
- genetic counselling
- duty to warn
- truth disclosure
- genetic screening/testing
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Healthcare professionals’ responsibility for informing relatives at risk of hereditary disease
- Referral for cancer genetics consultation: a review and compilation of risk assessment criteria
- The impact of proband mediated information dissemination in families with a BRCA1/2 gene mutation
- 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
- Evolution of genetic assessment for BRCA-associated gynaecologic malignancies: a Canadian multisociety roadmap
- Cultural aspects of cancer genetics: setting a research agenda
- Genetic counselling in ALS: facts, uncertainties and clinical suggestions
- Approaching confidentiality at a familial level in genomic medicine: a focus group study with healthcare professionals
- Phenotypic expression of double heterozygosity for BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations
- When to break the news and whose responsibility is it? A cross-sectional qualitative study of health professionals’ views regarding disclosure of BRCA genetic cancer risk