Managing incidental genomic findings: legal obligations of clinicians

被引:45
|
作者
Clayton, Ellen Wright [1 ,2 ]
Haga, Susanne [3 ]
Kuszler, Patricia [4 ,5 ]
Bane, Emily [5 ]
Shutske, Krysta [5 ]
Burke, Wylie [5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Vanderbilt Univ, Ctr Biomed Eth & Soc, Nashville, TN 37235 USA
[2] Vanderbilt Univ, Sch Law, Nashville, TN 37240 USA
[3] Duke Univ, Inst Genome Sci & Policy, Durham, NC USA
[4] Univ Washington, Sch Law, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[5] Univ Washington, Inst Publ Hlth Genet, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[6] Univ Washington, Dept Bioeth & Humanities, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
genomics; incidental findings; medical malpractice; radiology; INFORMATION; MEDICINE; RETURN; DUTY;
D O I
10.1038/gim.2013.7
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
Purpose: Clinical whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing will result in a broad range of incidental findings, but clinicians' obligations to identify and disclose such findings are a matter of debate. We sought legal cases that could offer insights into clinicians' legal liability. Methods: We searched for cases in which incidental findings were related to the cause of action, using the search engines WestLaw, WestLaw Next, Lexis, and Lexis Advance. Results: We found no case law related to incidental findings from genetic testing but identified eight cases involving incidental findings in medical imaging. These cases suggest that clinicians may face liability for failing to disclose incidental findings that would have offered an opportunity for interventions to improve health outcome, if under the applicable standard of care, they fail to identify or appreciate the significance of the incidental finding or they negligently fail to notify other clinicians and/or the patient of the identified incidental finding. Other cases support liability for failure to refer appropriately to a clinician with greater expertise. Conclusions: Clinicians may face liability if they fail to disclose incidental information that could inform interventions to improve health outcome; information lacking clinical actionability is likely to have less import.
引用
收藏
页码:624 / 629
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Incidental findings. Evaluation, management recommendations and legal considerations
    Mildenberger, P.
    RADIOLOGE, 2017, 57 (04): : 302 - 308
  • [32] INFORMED CONSENT AND GENOMIC INCIDENTAL FINDINGS: IRB CHAIR PERSPECTIVES
    Simon, Christian M.
    Williams, Janet K.
    Shinkunas, Laura
    Brandt, Debra
    Daack-Hirsch, Sandra
    Driessnack, Martha
    JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS, 2011, 6 (04) : 53 - 67
  • [33] A framework for the evaluation and reporting of incidental findings in clinical genomic testing
    Brown, Carolyn M.
    Amendola, Laura M.
    Chandrasekhar, Anjana
    Hagelstrom, R. Tanner
    Halter, Gillian
    Kesari, Akanchha
    Thorpe, Erin
    Perry, Denise L.
    Taft, Ryan J.
    Coffey, Alison J.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS, 2024, 32 (06) : 665 - 672
  • [34] Incidental Findings with Genomic Testing: Implications for Genetic Counseling Practice
    Myra I. Roche
    Jonathan S. Berg
    Current Genetic Medicine Reports, 2015, 3 (4) : 166 - 176
  • [35] Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk!
    Burke, Wylie
    Antommaria, Armand H. Matheny
    Bennett, Robin
    Botkin, Jeffrey
    Clayton, Ellen Wright
    Henderson, Gail E.
    Holm, Ingrid A.
    Jarvik, Gail P.
    Khoury, Muin J.
    Knoppers, Bartha Maria
    Press, Nancy A.
    Ross, Lainie Friedman
    Rothstein, Mark A.
    Saal, Howard
    Uhlmann, Wendy R.
    Wilfond, Benjamin
    Wolf, Susan M.
    Zimmern, Ron
    GENETICS IN MEDICINE, 2013, 15 (11) : 854 - 859
  • [36] Genomic Medicine and Incidental Findings: Balancing Actionability and Patient Autonomy
    McCormick, Jennifer B.
    Sharp, Richard R.
    Farrugia, Gianrico
    Lindor, Noralane M.
    Babovic-Vuksanovic, Dusica
    Borad, Mitesh J.
    Bryce, Alan H.
    Caselli, Richard J.
    Ferber, Matthew J.
    Johnson, Kiley J.
    Lazaridis, Konstantinos N.
    McWilliams, Robert R.
    Murray, Joseph A.
    Parker, Alexander S.
    Schahl, Kimberly A.
    Wieben, Eric D.
    MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS, 2014, 89 (06) : 718 - 721
  • [37] Institutional review board perspectives on obligations to disclose genetic incidental findings to research participants
    Gliwa, Catherine
    Yurkiewicz, Ilana R.
    Lehmann, Lisa Soleymani
    Hull, Sara Chandros
    Jones, Nathan
    Berkman, Benjamin E.
    GENETICS IN MEDICINE, 2016, 18 (07) : 705 - 711
  • [38] Critical social theory approach to disclosure of genomic incidental findings
    Bevan, Jeffrey L.
    Senn-Reeves, Julia N.
    Inventor, Ben R.
    Greiner, Shawna M.
    Mayer, Karen M.
    Rivard, Mary T.
    Hamilton, Rebekah J.
    NURSING ETHICS, 2012, 19 (06) : 819 - 828
  • [39] Research participant interest in primary, secondary, and incidental genomic findings
    Loud, Jennifer T.
    Bremer, Renee C.
    Mai, Phuong L.
    Peters, June A.
    Giri, Neelam
    Stewart, Douglas R.
    Greene, Mark H.
    Alter, Blanche P.
    Savage, Sharon A.
    GENETICS IN MEDICINE, 2016, 18 (12) : 1218 - 1225
  • [40] Ethical Considerations for the Return of Incidental Findings in Ophthalmic Genomic Research
    Souzeau, Emmanuelle
    Burdon, Kathryn P.
    Mackey, David A.
    Hewitt, Alex W.
    Savarirayan, Ravi
    Otlowski, Margaret
    Craig, Jamie E.
    TRANSLATIONAL VISION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2016, 5 (01): : 1 - 11