Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T16:53:31.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Physicians' Attitudes toward Disclosure of Genetic Information to Third Parties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Extract

Confidentiality is a cornerstone of the physician-patient relationship. Breaches of confidentiality in the context of genetic testing are of particular concern for a number of reasons. First, genetic testing reveals information not only about a particular patient, but also about his or her family members. Second,genetic testing can label healthy people as “at risk,” subjecting them to possible stigmatization or discrimination by third parties. Third, as genetic testing becomes more widespread and is incorporated into primary care, breaches of confidentiality might inadvertently occur more frequently because primary care providers may not be trained to understand the uniqueness of genetic information. Until now, genetic services have been provided primarily by medical geneticists and genetic counselors. However, with the proliferation of new genetic presymptomatic and carrier tests, primary care physicians are going to become increasingly involved in genetic testing. Currently, little is known about physicians’ attitudes (other than those of medical geneticists) toward disclosure of confidential genetic information to third parties.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The authors appreciate the cooperation of the respondents, and those who helped to develop the questionnaire. This work was supported by R01-HG00026, National Center for Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health.Google Scholar
Nolan, Kathleen, Swenson, Sara, “New Tools, New Dilemmas: Genetic Frontiers,” Hastings Center Report (October/November 1988): 4046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geller, Gail, Holtzman, Neil A., “Implications of the Human Genome Initiative for the Primary Care Physician,” Bioethics, 5 (1991): 318325; see also Holtzman, Neil A., “The Diffusion of New Genetic Tests for Predicting Disease,” FASEB, 6 (1992): 2806–2812.Google Scholar
Wertz, Dorothy C., Fletcher, John J., Mulvihill, John J., “Medical Geneticists Confront Ethical Dilemmas: Cross-Cultural Comparisons Among 18 Nations,” Am J Hum Genet, 46 (1990): 12001213; Pencarinha, Deborah F., Bell, Nora K., Edwards, Janice G., Best, Robert G., “Ethical Issues in Genetic Counseling: A Comparison of M.S. Counselor and Medical Geneticist Perspectives,” J Gen Counsel, 1 (1992): 19-30.Google Scholar
Tambor, Ellen S., Chase, Gary A., Faden, Ruth R., Geller, Gail, Hofman, Karen J., Holtzman, Neil A., “The Effect of Improved Response Rates on a Survey of Physicians' Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Genetics,” Am J Pub Health (in press).Google Scholar
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14, 17 Cal. App. 3d 425, 551 P. 2d 334 (1976).Google Scholar
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Screening and Counseling for Genetic Conditions. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983; Andrews, Lori B., “Legal Aspects of Genetic Information,” Yale J Bio Med, 64 (1991): 2940.Google Scholar
See Andrews, , supra note 6.Google Scholar