Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Public Perceptions of Ethical Issues Regarding Adult Predictive Genetic Testing

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the views of members of the general public regarding ethical issues in adult predictive genetic testing. The literature pertaining to ethical issues regarding to adult predictive genetic testing is largely restricted to the views of ‘experts’ who have emphasized informed consent, patent issues, and insurance discrimination. Occasionally the views of patients who have undergone genetic counselling and testing have been elicited, adding psychosocial and family issues. However, the general public has not had the opportunity to contribute. In order to explore theatre as a health policy research tool, 1,200 audience members attended the play ‘Sarah’s Daughters’ in seven Canadian cities, following which audience discussions were audiotaped. This study performed a secondary qualitative analysis of the data to identify the ethical issues of adult predictive genetic testing important to members of the general public. The identified issues were: (1) need for public education; (2) choice to undergo genetic counselling and testing; (3) access to genetic counselling and testing; and (4) obligations regarding the handling of genetic information. Audience members emphasized public education and access to information regarding potential choices, which was different from the emphasis on informed consent and other ethical issues prominent in the literature. Members of the general public emphasized ethical issues that were different than those identified by experts and patients. It is essential that members of the public be included in complex and controversial public policy decisions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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. Beckman, L. (2004). Are genetic self-tests dangerous? Assessing the commercialization of genetic testing in terms of personal autonomy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 25(5–6), 387–398. doi:10.1007/s11017-004-2047-z.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brandt-Rauf, P. W., & Brandt-Rauf, S. I. (2004). Genetic testing in the workplace: Ethical, legal, and social implications. Annual Review of Public Health, 25, 139. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.101802.123012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bruni, R., Laupacis, A., & Martin, D. K. (2008). The value of public engagement in priority setting. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 179(1), 15–18. doi:10.1503/cmaj.071656.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Caulfield, T. (1999). Gene testing in the biotech century: Are physicians ready? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161(9), 1122–1124.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Caulfield, T. A., Burgess, M. M., & Williams-Jones, B. (2001). Providing genetic testing through the private sector: A view from Canada. ISUMA: Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2, 72–81.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Charles, C., & DeMaio, S. (1993). Lay participation in health care decision making: A conceptual framework. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 18, 881–904. doi:10.1215/03616878-18-4-881.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Clayton, E. W. (2003). Ethical, legal, and social implications of genomic medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine, 349(6), 562–569. doi:10.1056/NEJMra012577.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cleary, P. D., & Edgman-Levitan, S. (1997). Health care quality: Incorporating consumer perspectives. American Medical Association Journal, 278, 1608–1612. doi:10.1001/jama.278.19.1608.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Daniels, N. (2000). Accountability for reasonableness. British Medical Journal, 321, 1300–1301. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1300.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. de Vries-Kragt, K. (1998). The dilemmas of a carrier of BRCA1 gene mutations. Patient Education and Counseling, 35, 75–80. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(98)00085-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. de Wert, G. (1998). Ethics of predictive DNA-testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Patient Education and Counseling, 35, 43–52. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(98)00082-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dugan, R. B., Wiesner, G. L., Juengst, E. T., O’Riordan, M., Matthews, A. L., & Robin, N. H. (2003). Duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease: Genetic counselor’s clinical experience. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C, 119C, 27–34. doi:10.1002/ajmg.c.10005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Giarelli, E. (2001). Ethical issues in genetic testing. Journal of Infusion Nursing, 24(5), 301–310. doi:10.1097/00129804-200109000-00004.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Goelen, G., Rigo, A., Bonduelle, M., & De Grève, J. (1999). Moral concerns of different types of patients in clinical BRCA1/2 gene mutation testing. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(5), 1595–1600.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Greenberg, R., Laupacis, A., Levinson, W., & Martin, D. K. (2008). Priority setting in the Ontario wait time strategy: Evaluating public involvement. BioMed Central Health Services Research, 7, 186.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hallowell, N., Ardern-Jones, A., Eeles, R., Foster, C., Lucassen, A., Moynihan, C., et al. (2005). Communication about genetic testing in families of male BRCA1/2 carriers and non-carriers: Patterns, priorities and problems. Clinical Genetics, 67(6), 492–502. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0004.2005.00443.x.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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(2), 74–83. doi:10.1136/jme.29.2.74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ham, C. (1993). Rationing in action: Priority Setting in the NHS: Reports from six districts. British Medical Journal, 307(6901), 436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Harris, M., Winship, I., & Spriggs, M. (2005). Controversies and ethical issues in cancer-genetics clinics. The lancet Oncology, 6(5), 301–310. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70166-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Huibers, A. K., & van’t Spijker, A. (1998). The autonomy paradox: Predictive genetic testing and autonomy: Three essential problems. Patient Education and Counseling, 35, 53–62. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(98)00083-4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Jordan, J., Dowswell, T., Harrison, S., Lilford, R. J., & Mort, M. (1998). Health needs assessment: Whose priorities? Listening to users and the public. British Medical Journal, 316, 1668–1670.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kent, A. (2003). Consent and confidentiality in genetics: Whose information is it anyway? Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 16–18. doi:10.1136/jme.29.1.16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Knoppers, B. M. (2002). Genetic information and the family: Are we our brother’s keeper? Trends in Biotechnology, 20(2), 85–86. doi:10.1016/S0167-7799(01)01879-0.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lenaghan, J. (1999). Involving the public in rationing decisions. The experience of citizens’ juries. Health Policy (Amsterdam), 49(1–2), 45–61. doi:10.1016/S0168-8510(99)00042-1.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Martin, D. K., Abelson, J., & Singer, P. A. (2002). Participation in health care priority setting through the eyes of the participants. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 7, 222–229. doi:10.1258/135581902320432750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mykitiuk, R. (2004). Caveat emptor: Direct-to-consumer supply and advertising of genetic testing. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 27(1), 23–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nisker, J., Martin, D. K., Bluhm, R., & Daar, A. S. (2006). Theatre as a public engagement tool for health-policy development. Health Policy (Amsterdam), 78, 258–271. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.10.009.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ossa, D. F., & Towse, A. (2004). Genetic screening, health care and the insurance industry. Should genetic information be made available to insurers? The European Journal of Health Economics, 5(2), 116–121. doi:10.1007/s10198-003-0213-2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Simrell King, C. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58, 317–326. doi:10.2307/977561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Traulsen, J. M., & Almarsdottir, B. (2005). Pharmaceutical policy and the lay public. Pharmacy World & Science, 27, 273–277. doi:10.1007/s11096-005-8512-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wellcome Trust. (2004). Public engagement: Sciart. www.wellcome.ac.uk/Funding/Public-engagement/Past-funding/WTD038569.htm.

  33. Wilfond, B. S., Rothenberg, K. H., Thomson, E. J., & Lerman, C. (1997). Cancer genetic susceptibility testing: Ethical and policy implications for future research and clinical practice. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 25(4), 243–251. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.1997.tb01406.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Genome Canada. DKM was supported by a New Investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Jeff Nisker’s research is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) through the Institute of Human Development, Child and Youth Health, and Genome Canada. Douglas Martin is supported by a Career Scientist award from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation and the Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, 88 College St., Toronto, ON, M5G 1L4, Canada

    Douglas K. Martin

  2. Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, 88 College St., Toronto, ON, M5G 1L4, Canada

    Heather L. Greenwood

  3. Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Oncology, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, University Hospital, 339 Windermere Rd., Rm A9-311, London, ON, N6A 5A5, Canada

    Jeff Nisker

Authors
  1. Douglas K. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather L. Greenwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeff Nisker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas K. Martin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martin, D.K., Greenwood, H.L. & Nisker, J. Public Perceptions of Ethical Issues Regarding Adult Predictive Genetic Testing. Health Care Anal 18, 103–112 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-009-0113-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-009-0113-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation