In Vayena’s article, ‘direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomics on the scales of autonomy’, she claims that there may be a strong autonomy-based argument for permitting DTC genomic services. In this response, I point out how the diminishment of one’s genetic privacy can cause a relevant autonomy-related harm which must be balanced against the autonomy-related gains DTC services provide. By drawing on conceptual connections between privacy and the Razian conception of autonomy, I show that DTC genetic testing may decrease the range of valuable options individuals possess, which impacts the extent to which would-be consumers can exercise their autonomy.
- genetic counseling
- genetic privacy
- personal autonomy
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.
Contributors All work was done solely by KvO.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- From proband to provider: is there an obligation to inform genetic relatives of actionable risks discovered through direct-to-consumer genetic testing?
- Direct-to-consumer genomics on the scales of autonomy
- Knowing me, knowing you
- Direct-to-consumer genetic testing
- Direct to consumer genetic testing and the libertarian right to test
- Direct to consumer genetic testing
- Commercial DNA tests and police investigations: a broad bioethical perspective
- Ethics of genetic testing and research in sport: a position statement from the Australian Institute of Sport
- Margaret McCartney: Direct to consumer genetic testing—is all knowledge power?
- Disclosure ‘downunder’: misadventures in Australian genetic privacy law