Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T22:09:27.760Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Physician as Gatekeeper to the Use of Genetic Information in the Criminal Justice System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Samuel C. Seiden ,
Karine Morin  and
for the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The discovery of the molecular structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and the science of molecular biology have profoundly changed medicine’s diagnostic capability and promise to transform the therapeutic realm. When some genetic disorders are diagnosed, physicians can intervene for prevention or treatment. While the basic structure of DNA is the same for all human beings, no two individuals, other than identical twins (or cloned individuals), have the same DNA sequence. This discovery has had important repercussions in the criminal justice system, where DNA can serve as an identification tool.

At the crossroads of these different uses of DNA, there are great concerns about potential misuses of genetic information. Preventing disease, curing illness, and convicting criminals are all seen as worthwhile uses of the technology, but concerns of potential misuse in medicine or in the criminal justice system are not unfounded. A 1998 American Medical Association (AMA) study showed that 68 percent of patients had fears that their genetic test results would be used against them by their employers or insurers. Others, pointing to racial profiling, have suggested that we may now face genetic profiling.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , Spring 2002 , pp. 88 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2002

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

Mitka, M., “Genetics Research Already Touching Your Practice,” American Medical News, April 6, 1998, News section at 3.Google Scholar
Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, “Principles of Medical Ethics, Principle VII,” in Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, Code of Medical Ethics: Current Opinions with Annotations (Chicago: American Medical Association, 2000): at xii.Google Scholar
Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, “Opinion 2.23, HIV Testing,” in Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, Code of Medical Ethics: Current Opinions with Annotations (Chicago: American Medical Association, 2000): At 84–85.Google Scholar
Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, “Opinion 2.135, Insurance Companies and Genetic Information,” in Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, Code of Medical Ethics: Current Opinions with Annotations (Chicago: American Medical Association, 2000): at 36.Google Scholar
Reilly, P.R., “Efforts to Regulate the Collection and Use of Genetic Information,” Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 123, no. 11 (1999): 1066–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission on Laboratory Accreditation, College of American Pathologists, Laboratory Accreditation Program: Molecular Pathology Checklist (October 2001) (emphasis added), available at <ftp://ftp.cap.org/lapchecklist/cklst_mol.pdf>..>Google Scholar
American Society of Human Genetics Social Issues Committee and the American College of Medical Genetics Social, Ethical, and Legal Issues Committee, “Genetic Testing in Adoption,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 66, no. 3 (2000): 761–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, R.C., “Mandatory Genetic Dogtags and the Fourth Amendment: The Need for a New Post-Skinner Test,” Georgetown Law Journal, 85, (1997): 2007–38.Google Scholar
See Reilly, , supra note 5.Google Scholar
See Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966); Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, “Opinion 2.08, Commercial Use of Human Tissue,” in Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, Code of Medical Ethics: Current Opinions with Annotations. (Chicago: American Medical Association, 2000): 25–26; Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 51 Cal.3d 120 (Cal. 1990).Google Scholar
Annas, G.J., “DNA Fingerprinting in the Twilight Zone,” Hastings Center Report, 20, no. 2 (1997): 35–37.Google Scholar
Drobner, F., “DNA Dragnets: Constitutional Aspects of Mass DNA Identification Testing,” Capital University Law Review, 28 (2000): 479–510, at 507; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); Renskers, S.E., Comment, “Trial by Certainty: Implications of Genetic ‘DNA Fingerprints,’” Emory Law Journal, 39 (1990): 309-46, at 323.Google Scholar
See Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).Google Scholar
Renskers, , supra note 12.Google Scholar
See Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).Google Scholar
Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, “Opinion 5.05, Confidentiality,” in Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, Code of Medical Ethics: Current Opinions with Annotations. (Chicago: American Medical Association, 2000): At 53.Google Scholar
Reeder, D.J., “Impact of DNA Typing on Standards and Practice in the Forensic Community,” Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 123, no. 11 (1999): 1063–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 313 (1997).Google Scholar
Public Health Service Act § 301 (d), 42 U.S.C. § 241 (d), as amended by Pub. L. No. 100-607, sec. 163 (Nov. 4, 1988).Google Scholar
See also Office for Human Research Protections, “Privacy Protection for Research Subjects: ‘Certificates of Confidentiality,’” at <http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/certconpriv.htm> (last updated October 12, 2000).+(last+updated+October+12,+2000).>Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
“Governor Ryan Declares Moratorium on Executions, Will Appoint Commission to Review Capital Punishment System,” press release by Governor of Illinois George H. Ryan (January 31, 2000), available at <http://www100.state.il.us/PressReleases/PressReleasesListShow.cfm?CFID=1084841&CFTOKEN=27810157&RecNum=359>..>Google Scholar
House of Delegates of the American Medical Association, H-80.994, Use of All Appropriate Medical Forensic Techniques in the Criminal Justice System (Chicago: American Medical Association, 2000).Google Scholar
Maixner, A.H. and Morin, K., “Confidentiality of Health Information Postmortem,” Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 125, no. 9 (September 2001): 1189–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, “Opinion 10.01, Fundamental Elements of the Patient-Physician Relationship,” in Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, Code of Medical Ethics: Current Opinions with Annotations (Chicago: American Medical Association, 2000): at 110–11.Google Scholar
See Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, supra note 16.Google Scholar
House of Delegates of the American Medical Association, H-315.983, Patient Privacy and Confidentiality (Chicago: American Medical Association, 1999).Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
Board of Trustees, American Medical Association, Evaluation of the Use of DNA Identification Testing in Criminal Proceedings (Chicago: American Medical Association, 1991).Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, “Opinion 2.136, Genetic Information and the Criminal Justice System,” in Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, Code of Medical Ethics: Current Opinions with Annotations (Chicago: American Medical Association, forthcoming in 2002).Google Scholar