Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T20:56:59.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disclosing Secondary Findings from Pediatric Sequencing to Families: Considering the “Benefit to Families”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Benjamin S. Wilfond ,
Conrad V. Fernandez  and
Robert C. Green
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Should children ever have genetic testing for adultonset conditions? For the last two decades, there have been general recommendations from professional organizations that discourage such testing. Until recently, such testing was only plausible in the context of a family history of a Mendelian condition that might prompt the parents (or an adolescent) to request testing for the adult-onset condition present within the family. In this context there has been a gradual shift in the direction of suggesting parents should have greater discretion to obtain such testing after careful consideration of risks and benefits by the family and the health care provider.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , Autumn 2015 , pp. 552 - 558
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Borry, P. Fryns, J. P. Schotsmans, P. Dierickx, K., “Carrier Testing in Minors: A Systematic Review of Guidelines and Position Papers,” European Journal of Human Genetics 14, no. 2 (2006): 133–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilfond, B. Ross, L. F., “From Genetics to Genomics: Ethics, Policy, and Parental Decision-Making,” Journal of Pediatric Psychology 34, no. 6 (2009): 639–647; Ross, L. F. Saal, H. M. David, K. L. et al. , “Technical Report: Ethical and Policy Issues in Genetic Testing and Screening of Children,” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 3 (2013): 234–245.Google Scholar
Green, R. C. Berg, J. S. Grody, W. W. et al. , “ACMG Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing,” Genetics in Medicine 15, no.7 (2013): 565–574.Google Scholar
Directors of the American College of Medical Genetics, “ACMG Policy Statement: Updated Recommendations Regarding Analysis and Reporting of Secondary Findings in Clinical Genome-Scale Sequencing,” Genetics in Medicine 17, no. 1 (2015): 68–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, W. Antommaria, A. H. Bennett, R. et al. , “Recommendations for Returning Genomic Incidental findings? We Need to Talk!” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 11 (2013): 854–859; Clayton, E. W. McCullough, L. B. Biesecker, L. G. et al. , “Addressing the Ethical Challenges in Genetic Testing and Sequencing of Children,” American Journal of Bioethics 14, no. 3 (2014): 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, et al. , supra note 3.Google Scholar
Burke, et al. , supra note 5.Google Scholar
American Society of Human Genetics Board of Directors and American College of Medical Genetics Board of Directors, “Points to Consider: Ethical, Legal, and Psychosocial Implications of Genetic Testing in Children and Adolescents,” American Journal of Human Genetics 57, no. 5 (1995): 1233–1241.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Davis, D. S., “Genetic Dilemmas and the Child's Right to an Open Future,” Hastings Center Report 27, no. 2 (1997): 7–15.Google Scholar
Ross, et al. , supra note 2.Google Scholar
American Society of Human Genetics Board of Directors and American College of Medical Genetics Board of Directors, supra note 8.Google Scholar
Wade, C. H. Wilfond, B. S. McBride, C. M., “Effects of Genetic Risk Information on Children's Psychosocial Wellbeing: A Systematic Review of the Literature,” Genetics in Medicine 12, no. 6 (2010): 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanos, J. H. Johnson, J. P., “Perception of Carrier Status by Cystic Fibrosis Siblings,” American Journal of Human Genetics 57, no. 2 (1995): 431–438.Google Scholar
Meiser, B. Dunn, S., “Psychological Impact of Genetic Testing for Huntington's Disease: An Update of the Literature,” Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 69, no. 5 (2000): 574–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanos, J. H., “Developmental Tasks of Childhood and Adolescence: Implications for Genetic Testing,” American Journal of Medical Genetics 71, no. 1 (1997): 22–28.3.0.CO;2-S>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, R. C. Roberts, J. S. Cupples, L. A. et al. , “Disclosure of APOE Genotype for Risk of Alzheimer's Disease,” New England Journal of Medicine 361, no. 3 (2009): 245–254; Lautenbach, D. M. Christensen, K. D. Sparks, J. A. Green, R. C., “Communicating Genetic Risk Information for Common Disorders in the Era of Genomic Medicine,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 14 (2013): 491–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, , supra note 9.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J., “The Child's Right to an Open Future,” in Freedom & Fulfillment (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992): At 76–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Codori, A. M. Brandt, J., “Psychological Costs and Benefits of Predictive Testing for Huntington's Disease,” American Journal of Medical Genetics 54, no. 3 (1994): 174–184; Quaid, K. A. Brandt, J. Folstein, S. E., “The Decision to be Tested for Huntington's Disease,” JAMA 257, no. 24 (1987): 3362–3360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilfond, Ross, , supra note 2; Ross, et al. , supra note 2.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Wilfond, B., “Predicting our Future: Lessons from Winnie-the-Pooh,” Hastings Center Report 42, no. 4 (2012): 3.Google Scholar
Diekema, D. S., “Parental Refusals of Medical Treatment: The Harm Principle as Threshold for State Intervention,” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25, no. 4 (2004): 243–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.; 45 C.F.R. § 46.404.Google Scholar
Fernandez, C. V. Bouffet, E. Malkin, D. et al. , “Attitudes of Parents toward the Return of Targeted and Incidental Genomic Research Findings in Children,” Genetics in Medicine 16, no. 8 (2014): 633–636.Google Scholar
Biesecker, L. G. Green, R. C., “Diagnostic Clinical Genome and Exome Sequencing,” New England Journal of Medicine 370, no. 25 (2014): 2418–2425.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Barby, J. S. McGuire, A. L. Green, R. C. Ubel, P. A., “How Behavioral Economics Can Help to Avoid ‘The Last Mile Problem’ in Whole Genome Sequencing,” Genome Medicine 7, no. 1 (2015): 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosse, S. D. Boyle, C. A. Kenneson, A. Khoury, M. J. Wilfond, B. S., “From Public Health Emergency to Public Health Service: The Implications of Evolving Criteria for Newborn Screening Panels,” Pediatrics 117, no. 3 (2006): 923–929; Bailey, D. B. Jr. Armstrong, F. D. Kemper, A. R. Skinner, D. Warren, S. F., “Supporting Family Adaptation to Presymptomatic and ‘Untreatable’ Conditions in an Era of Expanded Newborn Screening,” Journal of Pediatric Psychology 34, no. 6 (2009): 648–661.Google Scholar