Ethics and Breast Cancer

  • Amtul R. CarmichaelEmail author
  • Kerstin Sandelin


Enabling, empowering and educating a woman to make the right choice between breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy are aligned with the fundamental principle of bioethics, that is, respect for patient autonomy. A clear understanding of the contemporary ethical and social issues related to genetic testing for breast cancer is necessary to develop a practical approach for counselling, testing and treating patients with genetic disposition to breast cancer. Ethnic inequities, disparities, opportunity and timeliness to treatment and its prognostic significance on breast cancer mortality have been studied in several populations worldwide. While the underutilisation of screening mammography can be attributed to socioeconomic and cultural and geographic barriers, ethical principles must be taken into account. The debate regarding no intervention for low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ and the issue of overdiagnosis are further ethical issues that raise concerns in the informed decision process and the ethical concepts of no harm and autonomy.


Breast cancer BRCA Mastectomy Consent DCIS Bioethics Autonomy 


  1. 1.
    Kim C, Liang L, Wright FC, Hong NJL, Groot G, Helyer L, Meiers P, Quan ML, Urquhart R, Warburton R, Gagliardi AR. Interventions are needed to support patient-provider decision-making for DCIS: a scoping review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;168(3):579–92. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kennedy Report. Review of the response of Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust to concerns about Mr I Paterson’s Surgical Practice: lessons to be learned and recommendations.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Respect for autonomy from the book principle of biomedical ethics. 7th edition. New York, Oxford: Oxford University press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mendick N, Young B, Holcombe C, Salmon P. The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer. Triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon’s perspective. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(12):1904–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caldon L, Walters SJ, Reed MW. Changing trends in decision-making preferences of women with early breast cancer. The. Br J Surg. 2008;95(3):312–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dyers C. Woman who rejected breast cancer diagnosis may undergo surgery without her consent. BMJ. 2017;j5358:359.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bernhardt BA, et al. Educating patients about cystic fibrosis carrier screening in a primary care setting. Archives of family medicine five; 1996. p. 336–40.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McKenzie C. Relational autonomy, normative authority and perfectionism. J Soc Philos. 2008;39:512–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bundred NJ, Thomas J, Dixon JMJ. Whither surgical quality assurance of breast cancer surgery (surgical margins and local recurrence) after Paterson. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165:473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pusic AL, Matros E, Fine N, Buchel E, Gordillo GM, Hamill JB, Kim HM, Qi J, Albornoz C, Klassen AF, Wilkins EG. Patient-Reported Outcomes 1 Year After Immediate Breast Reconstruction: Results of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(22):2499–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Association of Breast Surgery at BASO. Surgical guidelines for the management of breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol EJSO. 2009;1:1–22.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fagerlin A, Lakhani I, Lantz PM, Janz NK, Morrow M, Schwartz K, Deapen D, Salem B, Liu L, Katz SJ. An informed decision? Breast cancer patients and their knowledge about treatment. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;64(1–3):303–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zdenkowski N, Butow P, Tesson S, Boyle FA. Systematic review of decision aids for patients making a decision about treatment for early breast cancer. Breast. 2016;26:31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Twomey M. Autonomy and reason: treatment choice in breast cancer. Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18(5):1045–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Swainston K, Campbell C, van Wersch A, Durning P. Treatment decision-making in breast cancer: a longitudinal exploration of women’s experience. Lit Health Psychol. 2012;17(1):155–70.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University press; 2009.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Temple WJ, Russell ML, Parsons LL, et al. Conservation surgery for breast cancer as the preferred choice: a prospective analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3367–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Covelli AM, Baxter NN, Fitch MI, McCready DR, Wright FC. “Taking control of cancer”: understanding women’s choice for mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:383–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Molenaar S, Oort F, Sprangers M, et al. Predictors of patients’ choices for breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy: a prospective study. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:2123–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Keller J. Autonomy, relationality and feminist ethics. Hypatia. 1997;12:152–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jeffrey G, et al. Understanding women’s choice of mastectomy versus breast conserving therapy in early-stage breast cancer. Clin Med Insights Oncol. 2017;11:1179554917691266. PMC. Web. 19 Aug. 2018.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McVea KL, Minier WC, Johnson Palensky JE. Low-income women with early stage breast cancer: physician and patient decision-making styles. Psychooncology. 2001;10:137–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. Risky feelings: why a 6% risk of cancer does not always feel like 6%. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;81:S87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Qullin JM, Lyckholm LJ. A principle-based approach to ethical issues in predictive genetic testing for breast cancer. Breast Dis. 2007;27(2006):137–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lanie AD, Jayaratne JP. Exploring the public understanding of basic genetic concept. J Gene Couns. 2004;13:305–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McInerney J. Education in a genomic world. J Med Philos. 2002;27:369–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    National Society of genetic counsellors. NSGC: code of ethics.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lo B. Overview of the doctor-patient relationship. In: Resolving ethical dilemmas: a guide for clinicians. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Williams; 2000. p. 195.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    ASHG statement, professional disclosure of familiar genetic information. the American Society of human genetics social issue subcommittee unfamiliar disclosure. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;62:474–83.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wilson BJ, Forrest K, van Teijlingen ER, McKee L, Haites N, Matthews E, Simpson SA. Family communication about genetic risk: the little that is known. Community Genet. 2004;7:15–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Surbone A. Social and ethical implications of BRCA testing. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(Suppl 1):I 60–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Surbone A. Balance between science and mortality. Ann Oncol. 2004;15(Suppl 1):i60–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jacobson N. The socially constructed breast: breast implants and the medical construction of need. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1254–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Eisinger F. Prophylactic mastectomy: ethical issues. Br Med Bull. 2007;81(82):7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Seneviratne S, Campbell I, Scott N, Lawrenson R. A cohort study of ethnic differences in use of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy for breast cancer in New Zealand. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:64. Scholar
  36. 36.
    Raphael MJ, Biagi JJ, Kong W, Mates M, Booth CM, Mackillop WJ. The relationship between time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;160(1):17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Al-Sukhun S, de Lima Lopes G Jr, Gospodarowicz M, Ginsburg O, Yu PP. Global Health Initiatives of the International Oncology Community. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2017;37:395–402. Scholar
  38. 38.
    Distelhorst SR, Cleary JF, Ganz PA, Bese N, Camacho-Rodriguez R, Cardoso F, Ddungu H, Gralow JR, Yip CH, Anderson BO. Optimisation of the continuum of supportive and palliative care for patients with breast cancer in low-income and middle-income countries: executive summary of the Breast Health Global Initiative, 2014. Breast Health Global Initiative Global Summit on Supportive Care and Quality of Life Consensus Panel Members. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(3):e137–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    O’Mahony M, Comber H, Fitzgerald T, Corrigan MA, Fitzgerald E, Grunfeld EA, Flynn MG, Hegarty J. Interventions for raising breast cancer awareness in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2:CD011396.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Abulkhair O, Saghir N, Sedky L, Saadedin A, Elzahwary H, Siddiqui N, Al Saleh M, Geara F, Birido N, Al-Eissa N, Al Sukhun S, Abdulkareem H, Ayoub MM, Deirawan F, Fayaz S, Kandil A, Khatib S, El-Mistiri M, Salem D, Sayd el SH, Jaloudi M, Jahanzeb M, Gradishar WI. Modification and implementation of NCCN guidelines on breast cancer in the Middle East and North Africa region. MENA Breast Cancer Regional Guidelines Committee. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2010;8(Suppl 3):S8–S15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kobetz E, Mendoza AD, Barton B, Menard J, Allen G, Pierre L, Diem J, McCoy V, McCoy C. Mammography use among Haitian women in Miami, Florida: an opportunity for intervention. J Immigr Minor Health. 2010;12(3):418–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Parker L, Carter S, Williams J, Pickles K, Barratt A. Avoiding harm and supporting autonomy are under-prioritised in cancer-screening policies and practices. Eur J Cancer. 2017;85:1–5. Scholar
  43. 43.
    Parker L. Including values in evidence-based policy making for breast screening: An empirically grounded tool to assist expert decision makers. Health Policy. 2017;121(7):793–9. Scholar
  44. 44.
    Francis A, Thomas J, Fallowfield L, et al. Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(16):2296–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Elshof LE, Tryfonidis K, Slaets L, et al. Feasibility of a prospective, randomised, open-label, international multicentre, phase III, non-inferiority trial to assess the safety of active surveillance for low risk ductal carcinoma in situ - The LORD study. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(12):1497–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Queens HospitalBurton-on-TrentUK
  2. 2.University of AstonBirminghamUK
  3. 3.Department of Molecular Medicine and SurgeryKarolinska InsitutetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations