Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. From proband to provider: is there an obligation to inform genetic relatives of actionable risks discovered through direct-to-consumer genetic testing?Jordan A. Parsons & Philip E. Baker - 2022 - Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (3):205-212.
    Direct-to-consumer genetic testing is a growing phenomenon, fuelled by the notion that knowledge equals control. One ethical question that arises concerns the proband’s duty to share information indicating genetic risks in their relatives. However, such duties are unenforceable and may result in the realisation of anticipated harm to relatives. We argue for a shift in responsibility from proband to provider, placing a duty on test providers in the event of identified actionable risks to relatives. Starting from Parker and Lucassen’s 'joint (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Who Counts as Family: A Pluralistic Account of Family in the Genetic Context.Serene Ong - 2022 - International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 15 (2):1-21.
    Genetic information affects patients’ families differently than other types of medical information. Family members might have a compelling interest in patients’ genetic information, but who counts as family? In this article, I assess current definitions of family and propose a pluralistic account of family, which comprises definitions of family based on biomedical, legal, and functional aspects. Respectful of various forms of family, a pluralistic account includes those with interests in genetic information. Finally, I apply it in the hypothetical case of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Genetic Information, the Principle of Rescue, and Special Obligations.S. Matthew Liao & Jordan MacKenzie - 2018 - Hastings Center Report 48 (3):18-19.
    In “Genetic Privacy, Disease Prevention, and the Principle of Rescue,” Madison Kilbride argues that patients have a duty to warn biological family members about clinically actionable adverse genetic findings. The duty does not stem from the special obligations that we may have to family members, she argues, but rather follows from the principle of rescue, which she understands as the idea that one ought to prevent, reduce, or mitigate the risk of harm to another person when the expected harm is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations