Mitchell C, Ploem M C, Hennekam R C M, Kaye J
Researcher in Law, Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Ewert House, Ewert Place, Oxford OX2 7DD.
Academic Legal Researcher, Department of Public Health, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22660, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Tottels J Prof Neglig. 2016 Jul;32(2):120-136.
The use of 'next-generation' genetic sequencing technology that allows the sequencing of large parts, or even the entirety, of a patient's genome is advancing rapidly in the UK and around the world. This is set to greatly increase the level of health information that will be of relevance to relatives and the latest medical guidance advises that there is a professional duty to consider warning a patient's relatives of a serious genetic risk in limited circumstances. However, the High Court in [2015] EWHC 1394 (QB), recently found that a legal duty on the part of doctors to warn a patient's daughter of a genetic risk of Huntington's Disease without the patient's consent, was not even 'reasonably arguable' and would not be 'fair, just and reasonable'. This article considers the courts' approach to a duty of care towards 'third parties' in this context and concludes that some form of a duty of care to genetic relatives in clinical genetics is at very least arguably 'fair, just and reasonable'.
在英国乃至全球，“下一代”基因测序技术的应用正在迅速发展，该技术能够对患者基因组的大部分甚至全部进行测序。这必将大幅增加与亲属相关的健康信息水平，最新的医学指南建议，在有限的情况下，医生有专业责任考虑警告患者亲属存在严重的遗传风险。然而，高等法院在[2015] EWHC 1394 (QB)案中，最近裁定医生在未经患者同意的情况下警告患者女儿亨廷顿舞蹈症遗传风险的法律责任，甚至都“没有合理的争议点”，并且也不符合“公平、公正且合理”的原则。本文探讨了在此背景下法院对“第三方”注意义务的处理方式，并得出结论：在临床遗传学中，对遗传亲属承担某种形式的注意义务至少可以说是“公平、公正且合理”的。
