Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethicolegal Aspects of Cancer Genetics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cancer Genetics

Part of the book series: Cancer Treatment and Research ((CTAR,volume 155))

Abstract

In the wake of efficacious preventive interventions based on hereditary cancer risk assessment, a number of ethical and legal challenges have emerged. These include issues such as appropriate testing of children and embryos, the “duty to warn” relatives about familial risk, reproductive genetic testing, the risk of genetic discrimination, and equitable access to testing. These and other issues will be discussed within the framework of a bioethical model, with reference to recent case law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. American Society of Clinical Oncology (1996) Statement of the American Society of Clinical Oncology: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 14:1730–1736

    Google Scholar 

  2. American Society of Clinical Oncology (2003) American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 21:2397–2406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Green MJ, Botkin JR (2003) “Genetic exceptionalism” in medicine: clarifying the differences between genetic and nongenetic tests. Ann Intern Med 138:571–575

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. American Medical Association Opinions on social policy issues, 1/4/05 update. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/8295.html. Accessed 1/5/2007

  5. United States Department of Health and Human Services Office for human research protection (OHRP) policy guidance [by topics], 12/28/06 update. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/index.html. Accessed 5/07/09

  6. The National Women’s Health Information Center (1996) Position paper: hereditary susceptibility testing for breast cancer, March 1996, 5/7/02 update. http://www.4woman.gov/napbc/catalog.wci/napbc/hspospap.htm. Accessed 1/5/07

  7. National Information Resource on Ethics and Human Genetics 3/06 update. http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nirehg/. Accessed 4/18/09

  8. Genetics & Public Policy Center http://www.dnapolicy.org/. Accessed 5/07/09

  9. Offit K (1998) Chapter 10 In: Clinical cancer genetics: risk management and counseling. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (1994) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hall MA, Rich SS (2000) Laws restricting health insurers’ use of genetic information: impact on genetic discrimination. Am J Hum Genet 66:293–307

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Harris M, Winship I, Spriggs M (2005) Controversies and ethical issues in cancer-genetics clinics. Lancet Oncol 6:301–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hall MA, McEwen JE, Barton JC et al (2005) Concerns in a primary care population about genetic discrimination by insurers. Genet Med 7:311–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McEwen JE, McCarty K, Reilly PR (1992) A survey of state insurance commissioners concerning genetic testing and life insurance. Am J Hum Genet 51:785–792

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 135 F.3d 1260, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998)

    Google Scholar 

  16. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) The Americans with disabilities act of 1990, Title I and V. US Code 12111–12201. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/ada.html. Accessed 5/07/09

  17. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Compliance manual, vol. 2, section 902, order 9 15.002, 902–945, 6/06 update. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/ada.html. Accessed 5/07/09

  18. Patient Privacy Rights. http://www.patientprivacyrights.org/site/PageServer. Accessed 5/07/09

  19. 65 Fed. Reg. 82,467

    Google Scholar 

  20. Clinton WJ (2000) Executive Order 13145 of February 8, 2000: to prohibit discrimination in federal employment based on genetic information. Fed Regist 65:6877–6880

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008. Information for researchers and health care professionals. http://www.genome.gov/24519851. Accessed 4/18/09

  22. Lapham EV, Kozma C, Weiss JO (1996) Genetic discrimination: perspectives of consumers. Science 274:621–624

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Statement of Commissioner Paul Steven Miller, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (20 July 2000). “Genetic information in the workplace.” Before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, U.S. Senate

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kauff ND, Mitra N, Robson ME et al (2005) Risk of ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation-negative hereditary breast cancer families. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1382–1384

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Katskee v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Nebraska (1994) 515 N.W.2d 645

    Google Scholar 

  26. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2004) Genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: evaluating direct-to-consumer marketing–Atlanta, Denver, Raleigh-Durham, and Seattle, 2003. MMWR 53:603–606

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hogarth S, Javitt G, Melzer D (2008) The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 9:161–182

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hudson KL, Murphy JA, Kaufman DJ et al (2006) Oversight of US genetic testing laboratories. Nat Biotechnol 24:1083–1090

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hudson K (2006). Testimony before the United States senate special committee on aging “at home DNA tests: marketing scam or medical breakthrough?” 27 July 2006. http://www.dnapolicy.org/resources/Testimony_of_Kathy_Hudson_Senate_Aging_7-27-06.pdf. Accessed 12/01/2006

  30. Burke W, Petersen G, Lynch P et al (1997) Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to cancer. I. Hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium. JAMA 277:915–919; Burke W, Daly M, Garber J, et al (1997) Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to cancer. II. BRCA1 and BRCA2. Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium. JAMA 277:997–1003

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Offit K, Garber J, Grady M et al (2004) American society of clinical oncology curriculum: cancer genetics and cancer predisposition testing, 2nd edn. ASCO Publishing, Alexandria, VA

    Google Scholar 

  32. Robson M, Offit K (2007) Management of women at hereditary risk for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 357:154–162

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Kauff ND, Satagopan JM, Robson ME et al (2002) Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med 346:1609–1615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Garber J, Offit K (2005) Hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes. J Clin Oncol 23:276–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Offit K, Groeger E, Turner S et al (2004) The “duty to warn” a patient’s family members about hereditary disease risks. JAMA 292:1469–1473

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Burke T, Rosenbaum S (2005) Molloy v Meier and the expanding standard of medical care: implications for public health policy and practice. Public Health Rep 120:209–210

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Andrews LB (1994) Assessing genetic risks: implications for health and social policy. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  38. Reilly PR, Boshar MF, Holtzman SH (1997) Ethical issues in genetic research: disclosure and informed consent. Nat Genet 15:16–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Miletich S, Armstrong K, Mayo J (2006) Life or death question, but debate was hidden for years. Seattle Times, 19 Oct 2006

    Google Scholar 

  40. Carstairs VDL, Morris R (1991) Deprivation and health in Scotland. Aberdeen. Aberdeen University Press, Aberdeen

    Google Scholar 

  41. Halbert CH, Kessler L, Stopfer JE et al (2006) Low rates of acceptance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 test results among African American women at increased risk for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. Genet Med 8:576–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Halbert CH, Kessler LJ, Mitchell E (2005) Genetic testing for inherited breast cancer risk in African Americans. Cancer Invest 23:285–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Collins SR, Davis K, Doty MM et al (2006) Gaps in health insurance: an all-American problem: findings from the commonwealth fund biennial health insurance survey, April 2006. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Collins_gapshltins_920.pdf. Accessed 4/29/09

  44. Doty MM, Holmgren AL (2006) Health care disconnect: gaps in coverage and care for minority adults. Findings from the commonwealth fund biennial health insurance survey (2005). Issue Brief (Commonwealth Fund) 21:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  45. AMA Opinions on social policy issues, E-2.138, Genetic Testing of Children

    Google Scholar 

  46. American Society of Human Genetics Board of Directors, American College of Medical Genetics Board of Directors (1995) Points to consider: ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. Am J Hum Genet 57:1233–1241

    Google Scholar 

  47. National Society of Genetic Counselors Position Statement: Prenatal And Childhood Testing For Adult-Onset Disorders, adopted 2005. http://www.nsgc.org/about/position.cfm#Prenatal_two. Accessed 5/07/09

  48. Rhodes R (2006) Why test children for adult-onset genetic diseases? Mt Sinai J Med 73:609–616

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Cauffman E, Steinberg L (2000) (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescence: why adolescents may be less culpable than adults. Behav Sci Law 18:741–760

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Offit K, Kohut K, Clagett B et al (2006) Cancer genetic testing and assisted reproduction. J Clin Oncol 24:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association (1994) Ethical issues related to prenatal genetic testing. Arch Fam Med 3:633–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ethics Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine (2004) Sex selection and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 82:S245–S248

    Google Scholar 

  53. British Medical Association. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis with tissue typing, 10/99 update.http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/PDFEthicsBrief68/$FILE/EthicsBrief68.pdf. Accessed 12/03/06

  54. Thornhill AR, de Die-Smulders CE, Geraedts JP et al (2005) ESHRE PGD consortium ‘best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)’. Hum Reprod 20:35–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Danish Council of Ethics. Microinsemination and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD): resume of recommendations, 3/05 update. http://www.etiskraad.dk/sw1771.asp. Accessed 5/07/09

  56. The President’s Council on Bioethics. Reproduction and responsibility: the regulation of new biotechnologies, 3/04 update. Accessed 12/03/06

    Google Scholar 

  57. Offit K, Sagi M, Hurley K (2006) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for cancer syndromes: a new challenge for preventive medicine. JAMA 296:2727–2730

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Genetics Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Kenneth Offit & Peter Thom

Authors
  1. Kenneth Offit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Thom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth Offit .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The UAB Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Hematology/Oncology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, 35294-3300, Alabama, USA

    Boris Pasche

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Offit, K., Thom, P. (2010). Ethicolegal Aspects of Cancer Genetics. In: Pasche, B. (eds) Cancer Genetics. Cancer Treatment and Research, vol 155. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6033-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6033-7_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-6032-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-6033-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation