Notini Lauren, Gaff Clara, Savulescu Julian, Vears Danya F
University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia.
Biomedical Ethics Research Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Australia.
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2023 Apr-Jun;14(2):74-83. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2022.2160507. Epub 2023 Jan 3.
There is ongoing debate regarding whether and under which circumstances secondary findings (SF) should be offered in the pediatric context. Although studies have examined patient perspectives on receiving SF, little research has been conducted examining the experiences of clinicians offering SF to parents of newborns receiving genomic sequencing for a recently diagnosed medical condition.
To address this, we conducted qualitative interviews exploring the views and experiences of 12 clinicians who offered SF to parents of infants who had diagnostic exome sequencing (ES) to identify the cause of their hearing loss. Interviews explored clinicians' accounts of parents' choices and decision-making about receiving SF, their views on whether and when to offer SF, their experiences returning SF, and any ethical challenges they encountered. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using inductive content analysis.
Clinicians reported parents who declined all SF often felt finding out about future conditions unrelated to their child's hearing loss may be unhelpful, or even harmful, or were overwhelmed by their child's diagnosis. Clinicians also reported that some parents chose SF because they felt obliged to, even if they did not want to receive them. They explained that while some parents experienced decision-making regarding SF as positive, for others, this process was challenging or distressing. While clinicians generally agreed SF should be offered, mainly to promote parental choice, most felt SF should be offered after disclosing diagnostic results, primarily to avoid overwhelming parents. Clinicians encountered several ethical challenges, including balancing parental autonomy with non-maleficence, wanting to report or not report certain SF, and questioning whether parents can make an autonomous choice regarding SF.
Our findings, which are novel as they relate to parents of young infants with a recent diagnosis of hearing loss, add new insights into clinicians' and parents' decision-making regarding SF in pediatrics.
关于在儿科环境中是否以及在何种情况下应提供次要发现(SF),目前仍存在争议。尽管已有研究探讨了患者对接受次要发现的看法,但很少有研究考察临床医生向因近期诊断出的疾病而接受基因组测序的新生儿父母提供次要发现的经历。
为解决这一问题,我们进行了定性访谈,探讨了12位临床医生的观点和经历,这些医生向因诊断性外显子组测序(ES)以确定听力损失原因的婴儿父母提供次要发现。访谈探讨了临床医生对父母接受次要发现的选择和决策的描述、他们对是否以及何时提供次要发现的看法、他们返回次要发现的经历以及他们遇到的任何伦理挑战。访谈进行了录音、转录,并采用归纳性内容分析法进行分析。
临床医生报告说,拒绝所有次要发现的父母通常认为,了解与孩子听力损失无关的未来疾病可能没有帮助,甚至有害,或者被孩子的诊断压得喘不过气来。临床医生还报告说,一些父母选择次要发现是因为他们觉得有义务这样做,即使他们不想接受。他们解释说,虽然一些父母认为关于次要发现的决策是积极的,但对另一些父母来说,这个过程具有挑战性或令人痛苦。虽然临床医生普遍同意应提供次要发现,主要是为了促进父母的选择,但大多数人认为应在披露诊断结果后提供次要发现,主要是为了避免让父母不堪重负。临床医生遇到了几个伦理挑战,包括平衡父母的自主权与不伤害原则、是否报告某些次要发现的问题,以及质疑父母是否能够就次要发现做出自主选择。
我们的研究结果与近期被诊断为听力损失的幼儿父母相关,具有新颖性,为儿科领域临床医生和父母关于次要发现的决策提供了新的见解。