The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

'Is this knowledge mine and nobody else's? I don't feel that.' Patient views about consent, confidentiality and information-sharing in genetic medicine

'Is this knowledge mine and nobody else's? I don't feel that.' Patient views about consent, confidentiality and information-sharing in genetic medicine
'Is this knowledge mine and nobody else's? I don't feel that.' Patient views about consent, confidentiality and information-sharing in genetic medicine
In genetic medicine, a patient's diagnosis can mean their family members are also at risk, raising a question about how consent and confidentiality should function in clinical genetics. This question is particularly pressing when it is unclear whether a patient has shared information. Conventionally, healthcare professionals view confidentiality at an individual level and 'disclosure without consent' as the exception, not the rule. The relational joint account model, by contrast, conceptualises genetic information as confidential at the familial level and encourages professionals to take disclosure as the default position. In this study, we interviewed 33 patients about consent and confidentiality and analysed data thematically. Our first theme showed that although participants thought of certain aspects of genetic conditions-for example, the way they affect day-to-day health-as somewhat personal, they perceived genetic information-for example, the mutation in isolation-as familial. Most thought these elements were separable and thought family members had a right to know the latter, identifying a broad range of harms that would justify disclosure. Our second theme illustrated that participants nonetheless had some concerns about what, if any, implications there would be of professionals treating such information as familial and they emphasised the importance of being informed about the way their information would be shared. Based on these results, we recommend that professionals take disclosure as the default position, but make clear that they will treat genetic information as familial during initial consultations and address any concerns therein.
1473-4257
174-179
Dheensa, Sandi
d7d7e2bb-8def-4fad-9e1d-33d8141a0c9c
Fenwick, Angela
95a1f4fa-7f6f-4c07-a93b-9ea39c231c31
Lucassen, Anneke
2eb85efc-c6e8-4c3f-b963-0290f6c038a5
Dheensa, Sandi
d7d7e2bb-8def-4fad-9e1d-33d8141a0c9c
Fenwick, Angela
95a1f4fa-7f6f-4c07-a93b-9ea39c231c31
Lucassen, Anneke
2eb85efc-c6e8-4c3f-b963-0290f6c038a5

Dheensa, Sandi, Fenwick, Angela and Lucassen, Anneke (2016) 'Is this knowledge mine and nobody else's? I don't feel that.' Patient views about consent, confidentiality and information-sharing in genetic medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42 (3), 174-179. (doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-102781). (PMID:26744307)

Record type: Article

Abstract

In genetic medicine, a patient's diagnosis can mean their family members are also at risk, raising a question about how consent and confidentiality should function in clinical genetics. This question is particularly pressing when it is unclear whether a patient has shared information. Conventionally, healthcare professionals view confidentiality at an individual level and 'disclosure without consent' as the exception, not the rule. The relational joint account model, by contrast, conceptualises genetic information as confidential at the familial level and encourages professionals to take disclosure as the default position. In this study, we interviewed 33 patients about consent and confidentiality and analysed data thematically. Our first theme showed that although participants thought of certain aspects of genetic conditions-for example, the way they affect day-to-day health-as somewhat personal, they perceived genetic information-for example, the mutation in isolation-as familial. Most thought these elements were separable and thought family members had a right to know the latter, identifying a broad range of harms that would justify disclosure. Our second theme illustrated that participants nonetheless had some concerns about what, if any, implications there would be of professionals treating such information as familial and they emphasised the importance of being informed about the way their information would be shared. Based on these results, we recommend that professionals take disclosure as the default position, but make clear that they will treat genetic information as familial during initial consultations and address any concerns therein.

Text
J Med Ethics-2016-Dheensa-medethics-2015-102781.pdf - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (245kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 7 December 2015
e-pub ahead of print date: 7 January 2016
Published date: 25 February 2016
Organisations: Cancer Sciences

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 385723
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/385723
ISSN: 1473-4257
PURE UUID: 9eab4e42-8e08-45d6-af54-77908f8d0345
ORCID for Anneke Lucassen: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-3324-4338

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 21 Jan 2016 14:09
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 03:11

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Sandi Dheensa
Author: Angela Fenwick
Author: Anneke Lucassen ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×