Prompted by developments in human genetics, a recurrent bioethical question concerns a person’s ‘right to know’ and ‘right not to know’ about genetic information held that is intrinsically related to or linked to them. In this paper, we will revisit the claimed rights in relation to two particular test cases. One concerns the rights of the 500,000 participants in UK Biobank whose biosamples, already having been genotyped, will now be exome sequenced, and the other concerns the rights of pregnant women (...) who undergo non-invasive prenatal testing —a simple blood test that can reveal genetic information about both a foetus and its mother. This two-part paper is in four principal sections. First, we sketch the relevant features of our two test cases. Secondly, we consider the significance of recent legal jurisprudence in the UK and Singapore. Thirdly, we consider how, the jurisprudence apart, the claimed rights might be grounded. Fourthly, we consider the limits on the rights. We conclude with some short remarks about the kind of genetically aware society that we might want to be and how far there is still an opportunity meaningfully to debate the claimed rights. (shrink)

A paediatric clinical trial conducted in a developing country is likely to encounter conditions or illnesses in participants unrelated to the study. Since local healthcare resources may be inadequate to meet these needs, research clinicians may face the dilemma of deciding when to provide ancillary care and to what extent. The authors propose a model for identifying ancillary care obligations that draws on assessments of urgency, the capacity of the local healthcare infrastructure and the capacity of the research infrastructure. The (...) model lends itself to a decision tree that can be adapted to the local context and resources so as to provide procedural guidance. This approach can help in planning and establishing organisational policies that govern the provision of ancillary care. (shrink)

Ancillary care is care that research participants need that is not essential to make the research safe or scientifically valid and is not needed to remedy injuries that eventuate as a result of the research project itself. Ancillary care duties have recently been defended on the grounds of beneficence, entrustment, utility and consent. Justice has also been mentioned as a possible basis of ancillary care duties, but little attention has been paid to this approach. In this paper, the author seeks (...) to rectify this omission by arguing that ancillary care duties can be based on a principle of justice as rectification. (shrink)

Researchers conducting large community-based studies among underserved populations may collect data on health conditions that are little-acknowledged in the local setting, and for which there are few if any services for referral of participants who need follow-up diagnosis and care. In the design and planning of studies for such settings, investigators and research ethics committees may struggle to determine what constitutes effective referral and whether it is reasonably available. We offer a guiding framework for referral planning, informed by our experiences (...) of research in the field and of service on research ethics committees, to support evaluation of local referral resources and consideration of the benefits, burdens and risks of referral in the local setting. The framework addresses both the impact of referral on the well-being of the people who would be referred and the impact that referral of study participants would have on local people outside the study. We use a sustained discussion of three field-based case examples to illustrate the ethical concerns at issue and to demonstrate the use of the referral planning framework. (shrink)