 |
 |
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Past Issues |
In the Clinic |
ACP Journal Club |
CME |
Collections |
Audio/Video |
Mobile |
Subscribe |
Tools |
Help |
ACP Online
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 April 2003 | Volume 138 Issue 7 | Pages 571-575
Predictive genetic tests are now available for assessing susceptibility to a variety of conditions, including breast and colon cancer, hemochromatosis, and Alzheimer and Huntington disease. Much controversy surrounds the application of these tests, stemming from their similarities to and differences from other tests commonly used in asymptomatic persons. Some have argued that genetic tests are unique and therefore justify special consideration with regard to informed consent and privacy. This paper examines the arguments for such "genetic exceptionalism" and concludes that no clear, significant distinctions between genetic and nongenetic tests justify a different approach to testing by clinicians. Nevertheless, with many genetic tests, the results may cause stigmatization, family discord, and psychological distress. Regardless of whether a test is genetic, when this combination of characteristics is present and when health care providers are not specifically trained to interpret results, testing should be performed with particular caution and the highest standards of informed consent and privacy protection should be applied.
Author and Article Information
From Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania; and University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank Gail Geller, Howard Markel, Barron Lerner, Peter Ubel, Rick Kodish, David Barnard, Norman Fost, Nancy D. Taylor, and several anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Grant Support: By grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Human Genome Research Institute (5R03 CA70838 and R01CA84770).
Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed.
Requests for Single Reprints: Michael J. Green, MD, MS, Department of Humanities, H134, Penn State College of Medicine, Room 1743, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA 17033.
Current Author Addresses: Dr. Green: Department of Humanities, H134, Penn State College of Medicine, Room 1743, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA 17033.
Dr. Botkin: Department of Pediatrics, 100 North Medical Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84113. PERSPECTIVE
"Genetic Exceptionalism" in Medicine: Clarifying the Differences between Genetic and Nongenetic Tests
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. R. Susswein, C. Skrzynia, L. A. Lange, J. K. Booker, M. L. Graham III, and J. P. Evans Increased Uptake of BRCA1/2 Genetic Testing Among African American Women With a Recent Diagnosis of Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., January 1, 2008; 26(1): 32 - 36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Kass and A. Medley Genetic Screening and Disability Insurance: What Can We Learn From The Health Insurance Experience? J. Law Med. Ethics, June 1, 2007; 35(2_Suppl): 66 - 73. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Nyrhinen, M. Hietala, P. Puukka, and H. Leino-Kilpi Privacy and Equality in Diagnostic Genetic Testing Nursing Ethics, May 1, 2007; 14(3): 295 - 308. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Eisinger Prophylactic mastectomy: ethical issues Br. Med. Bull., April 4, 2007; (2007) ldm003v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. W. Roberts, T. D. Warner, K. G. Hammond, and L. B. Dunn Assessments by Patients With Schizophrenia and Psychiatrists of Relative Risk of Research Procedures Psychiatr Serv, November 1, 2006; 57(11): 1629 - 1635. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M W Foster, C D M Royal, and R R Sharp The routinisation of genomics and genetics: implications for ethical practices. J. Med. Ethics, November 1, 2006; 32(11): 635 - 638. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K G Fulda and K Lykens Ethical issues in predictive genetic testing: a public health perspective. J. Med. Ethics, March 1, 2006; 32(3): 143 - 147. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
Article
