Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Letting the family know: balancing ethics and effectiveness when notifying relatives about genetic testing for a familial disorder
Free
  1. G K Suthers1,2,
  2. J Armstrong1,
  3. J McCormack1,
  4. D Trott1
  1. 1Familial Cancer Unit, South Australian Clinical Genetics Service, Department of Genetic Medicine, Children’s Youth and Women’s Health Service, North Adelaide, Australia
  2. 2Department of Paediatrics, University of Adelaide, Australia
  1. Correspondence to:
 Dr G Suthers
 Familial Cancer Unit, South Australian Clinical Genetics Service, Department of Genetic Medicine, Children’s Youth and Women’s Health Service, North Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia; graeme.suthers{at}cywhs.sa.gov.au

Abstract

Objective: To increase the awareness among at risk relatives of the availability of genetic testing for a familial disorder while respecting their autonomy and privacy.

Methods: This was a comparison of preintervention and postintervention cohorts of families carried out in a state wide clinical service providing genetic counselling and testing for people at risk of familial adult onset cancer. Unaffected relatives who were not clients of the service in 74 kindreds with familial mutations causing familial breast and ovarian cancer, hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer, or Cowden syndrome were included in the study. In the baseline cohort (41 kindreds), family members who were clients of the clinical service and had been shown to be carriers of mutations were asked to advise relatives that genetic testing was available. In the intervention cohort (33 kindreds), the clinical service obtained consent to advise at risk relatives by letter that genetic testing was available. The main outcome measures were: (a) proportion of unaffected first and second degree relatives of the proband in each family whose genetic status was clarified within 2 years of the mutation being identified in the family, and (b) concerns regarding privacy and autonomy voiced by relatives receiving these letters.

Results: In the baseline cohort, the average proportion of relatives in each family whose genetic status was clarified was 23%. In the intervention cohort, the average proportion of relatives in each family whose genetic status was clarified was 40% (p = 0.001). None of the relatives in the intervention cohort complained of a breach of privacy or autonomy.

Conclusion: Clinical services can take an effective and proactive approach to notifying relatives who are not their clients of the availability of genetic testing without compromising principles of privacy and autonomy.

  • FCS, Familial Cancer Service
  • ethics
  • privacy
  • risk notification
  • genetic testing

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Published Online First 21 December 2005

  • Funding of the Familial Cancer Service is provided by the South Australian Department of Health and The Cancer Council SA; these organisations were not otherwise involved in any aspect of this study.

  • Competing interests: The Women’s and Children’s Hospital receives a share of royalties from sales of the KinTrak database. As an employee of the Hospital, G K Suthers has been seconded to provide consultancy services for KinTrak International. D Trott has provided consultancy services to KinTrak International. J McCormack and J Armstrong have no competing interests.