Our ability to generate genomic data is currently well ahead of our ability to understand what they mean, raising challenges about how best to engage with them. This article considers ethical aspects of work with such data, focussing on research contexts that are intertwined with clinical care. We discuss the identifying nature of genomic data, the medical information intrinsic within them, and their linking of people within a biological family. We go on to consider what this means for consent, the (...) importance of thoughtful sharing of genomic data, the challenge of constructing meaningful findings, and the legacy of unequal representation in genomic datasets. We argue that the ongoing success of genomic data research relies on public trust in the enterprise: to justify this trust, we need to ensure robust stewarding, and wide engagement about the ethical issues inherent in such practices. (shrink)

Considerations of the notion of preparedness have come to the fore in the recent pandemic, highlighting a need to be better prepared to deal with sudden, unexpected and unwanted events. However, the concept of preparedness is also important in relation to planned for and desired interventions resulting from healthcare innovations. We describe ethical preparedness as a necessary component for the successful delivery of novel healthcare innovations, and use recent advances in genomic healthcare as an example. We suggest that practitioners and (...) organisations charged with delivering innovative and ambitious healthcare programmes can only succeed if they are able to exhibit the attribute of ethical preparedness. (shrink)

We thank Lucy Frith for her thought-provoking response1 to our paper, where we argued that it would be ethically acceptable to contact an anonymous egg donor to help facilitate diagnostic genetic testing for a donor-conceived child.2 While we read Frith’s commentary with interest, we still think that the egg donor should be contacted in the case that we describe. Frith raises concerns as to whether contact would constitute ‘ overriding consent ’, thus ’ potentially set(ting) a dangerous precedent ’ for (...) existing gamete donors and donor-conceived children. In contrast, we consider that contacting the egg donor would not override her consent, as her views on contact in the instance that has now arisen were never sought. Our view is that given we do not currently know what she might want, contacting her is a more legitimate way of respecting her autonomy than trying to anticipate her likely answer. We strongly agree with Frith’s suggestion that future consent discussions around gamete donation should make explicit ‘ the possibility of being contacted in the future if there is a relevant reason for doing so ’. Frith expresses a concern that contact would constitute ‘ overriding [the egg donor’s] consent ’, meaning that we have to ‘ justify contacting the egg donor against her previously stated wishes not to be contacted ’. However, our argument is that the egg donor was never asked whether or not she was happy to be contacted in the circumstances that have now arisen. Thus, there is no consent to be overridden, given that she never gave or withheld it in the first place. Frith rightly acknowledges that her arguments therefore ‘ [do] not fully address [our] main worry that the donor’s wishes are essentially unknown, as she was not asked about this specific situation and …. (shrink)

In their paper Hortonet alargue that it is acceptable to contact an anonymous egg-donor to facilitate diagnostic genetic testing for the donor conceived child, despite the donor, ‘indicating on a historical consent form that she did not wish to take part in future research, and that she did not wish to be informed if she was found to be a carrier of a “harmful inherited condition”’. There are a number of claims embedded in Hortonet al’s position that it is acceptable (...) to contact the donor and request that she at least think about participating in genetic testing. In this response. I will go through their main claims and argue that the area of genomic medicine does not justify exceptions to general consent conditions as the authors suppose and conclude that the donor should not be contacted. I will then go on to suggest a policy change that would address Hortonet al’s concerns but would not involve over-riding any previously expressed wishes. (shrink)

Drawing on the views of donors and recipients about anonymity in a country that is experiencing a transition towards non-anonymous gamete donation mandated by the Constitutional Court, we explore how the intersection between rights-based approaches and an empirical framework enhances recommendations for ethical policy and healthcare. Between July 2017 and April 2018, 69 donors and 147 recipients, recruited at the Portuguese Public Bank of Gametes, participated in this cross-sectional study. Position towards anonymity was assessed through an open-ended question in a (...) self-report questionnaire, which was subject to content analysis. Preference for an anonymous donation regime was mentioned by 82.6% of donors and 89.8% of recipients; and all those with children. Instead of the rights-based reasoning used by the Constitutional Court, donors highlighted concerns over future relationships and recipients focused on socioethical values linked with the safeguard of safety, privacy and confidentiality. The remaining participants advocated the choice between anonymity or non-anonymity, invoking respect for their autonomy. The complex, diverse ethical views and reasoning of donors and recipients expand a traditionally dichotomous discussion. Their perspectives challenge the transition towards non-anonymity and international guidelines, raising awareness to the need for their involvement in the design of policies to enable choice according to their values and preferences, and of psychosocial counselling responsive to their socioethical concerns and sensitive to their parental status. Empirical frameworks complement rights-based approaches to uphold justice, fairness and equal respect, and to incorporate utility, beneficence and non-maleficence in policymaking and healthcare in the transition towards non-anonymity. (shrink)