Skip to main content
Log in

Communication of Genetic Information within Families: The Case for Familial Comity

  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Advances in genetic technologies raise a multitude of ethical issues, some of which give rise to novel dilemmas for medical practice. One of the most controversial problems arising in clinical genetics is that of confidentiality and who may disclose genetic health information. This paper considers the question of when it is appropriate for health professionals to disclose clinically significant genetic information without patient consent. Existing ethical principles offer little guidance in relation to this issue. We build on suggestions that genetic information may be viewed as collective or shared information, and we introduce the concept of ‘familial comity’ as a fresh way to consider the issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Society of Human Genetics Social Issues Subcommittee on Familial (1998). Professional disclosure of familial genetic information. American Journal of Human Genetics, 62, 474–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Australian Law Reform Commission (2003). Report 96: Essentially yours: Protection of human genetic information in Australia. Canberra: ALRC.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bell, D., & Bennett, B. (2001). Genetic secrets and the family. Medical Law Review, 9, 130–161.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Breheny, N., Geelhoed, E., Goldblatt, J., Ee, H., O’Leary, P. (2006). Economic evaluation of the familial cancer program in Western Australia: Predictive Genetic Testing for FAP and HNPCC. Community Genetics, 9, 98–106.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Clarke, A. (1994). The genetic testing of children. Working Party of the Clinical Genetics Society (UK). Journal of Medical Genetics, 31, 785–797.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Clarke, A., Richards, M., Kerzin-Storrar, L., Halliday, J., Young, M., Simpson, S., et al. (2005). Genetic professionals’ reports of nondisclosure of genetic risk information within families. European Journal of Human Genetics, 13, 556–562.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Council General Medical (2004). Confidentiality: Protecting and Providing Genetic Information. London.

  8. Coupland, R., Martin, S., Dutli, M. T., Coupland, R., & Martin, S. (2005). Protecting everybody’s genetic data. Lancet, 365, 1754–1756.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dugan, R., Weisner, G., Juegst, E., O’Riordan, M., Matthews, A., & Robin, N. (2003). Duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease: Genetic counselor’s clinical experience. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 119, 27–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dumitrescu, R., & Cotarla, I. (2005). Understanding breast cancer risk – Where do we stand in 2005? Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, 9(1), 208–221.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Giardiello, F. M., Brensinger, J. D., & Petersen, G. M. (2001). AGA technical review on hereditary colorectal cancer and genetic testing. Gastroenterology, 121, 198–213.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gillam, L., & Little, J. (2001). Confidentiality. Medical Journal of Australia, 174, 296–297.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hallowell, N., Foster, C., Eeles, R., Ardern-Jones, A., Murday, V., & Watson, M. (2003). Balancing autonomy and responsibility: the ethics of generating and disclosing genetic information. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 74–79.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Human Genetics Society of Australasia (2005). Predictive Testing in Children and Adolescents (April).

  15. Inside Information: Balancing interests in the use of personal genetic data. London, Human Genetics Commission. May (2002).

  16. Knoppers, B., Strom, C., Wright-Clayton, E., Murray, T., Fibison, W., & Luther, L. (1998). Professional disclosure of familial genetic information. American Journal of Human Genetics, 62, 474–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Laurance, J. (2005). A family secret... that could be a killer. The Independent (May 10;Sect. 1).

  18. Lerman, C., Peshkin, B., Hughes, C., & Isaacs, C. (1995). Family disclosure in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: Determinants and consequences. Journal of Health Care Law & Policy, 1(353), 353–375.

    Google Scholar 

  19. McGivern, B., Everett, J., Yager, G., Baumiller, R., Hafertepen, A., & Saal, H. (2004). Family communication about positive BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results. General Medicine, 6(6), 503–509.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. National Health and Medical Research Council (1992). Ethical aspects of human genetic testing: An information paper. Canberra: NHMRC.

  21. National Health and Medical Research Council (1999). Guidelines for the prevention, early detection and management of colorectal cancer. Canberra, Australia: AGPS.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Newson, A. (2004). The nature and significance of behavioural genetic information. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 25, 89–111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Noble, T. (2002). Let us warn patients of cancer mutation, say doctors. The Age.

  24. Parker, M., & Lucassen, A. (2004). Genetic information: A joint account? Basic Music Journal, 329, 165–167.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Richards, M. (2001). Distinctive is Genetic Information? Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 32C, 663–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Savulescu, J., & Robertson, S. (2001). Is there a case in favour of predictive genetic testing in young children? Bioethics, 15, 27–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Skene, L., & Charlsworth, M. (1996). The new genetics: Legal and ethical implications for medicine. Medical Journal of Australia, 165, 301–303.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith, K., West, J., Croyle, R., & Botkin, J. (1999). Familial context of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: Moderating effect of siblings’ test results on psychological distress one to two weeks after BRCA1 mutation testing. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 8, 385–392.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Wachbroit, R., & Wasserman, D. (2003). Patient autonomy and value-neutrality in nondirective genetic counseling. In B. Steinbock, J. D. Arras, & A. J. London (Eds.), Ethical issues in modern medicine (pp. 563–571). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angela Davey.

Additional information

Competing Interests: None declared. Funding: No special funding was secured for this research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davey, A., Newson, A. & O’Leary, P. Communication of Genetic Information within Families: The Case for Familial Comity. Bioethical Inquiry 3, 161–166 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-006-9022-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-006-9022-5

Keywords

Navigation