遗传职责。
GENETIC DUTIES.
作者信息
Roberts Jessica L, Foulkes Alexandra L
机构信息
University of Houston Law Center.
United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
出版信息
William Mary Law Rev. 2020 Oct;62(1):143-211.
Abstract
Most of our genetic information does not change, yet the results of our genetic tests might. Labs reclassify genetic variants in response to advances in genetic science. As a result, a person who took a test in 2010 could take the same test with the same lab in 2020 and get a different result. However, no legal duty requires labs or physicians to inform patients when a lab reclassifies a variant, even if the reclassification communicates clinically actionable information. This Article considers the need for such duties and their potential challenges. In so doing, it offers much-needed guidance to physicians and labs, who may face liability, and to courts, which will hear these cases.
摘要
我们的大部分基因信息不会改变，但基因检测的结果可能会变。实验室会根据基因科学的进展对基因变异进行重新分类。因此，一个在2010年做过检测的人，2020年在同一家实验室做同样的检测，可能会得到不同的结果。然而，即使重新分类传达了具有临床可操作性的信息，法律也没有规定实验室或医生有义务在实验室对变异进行重新分类时告知患者。本文探讨了此类义务的必要性及其潜在挑战。在此过程中，它为可能面临责任的医生和实验室以及将审理这些案件的法院提供了急需的指导。
相似文献
1
GENETIC DUTIES.遗传职责。
William Mary Law Rev. 2020 Oct;62(1):143-211.
2
Independent medical examinations: an expanding source of physician liability.独立医学检查：医生责任不断扩大的一个源头。
Ann Intern Med. 2005 Jun 21;142(12 Pt 1):974-8. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_part_1-200506210-00007.
3
4
Exploring the potential duty of care in clinical genomics under UK law.探索英国法律下临床基因组学中潜在的注意义务。
Med Law Int. 2017 Sep;17(3):158-182. doi: 10.1177/0968533217721966. Epub 2017 Aug 14.
5
Finding Fault? Exploring Legal Duties to Return Incidental Findings in Genomic Research.吹毛求疵？探索基因组研究中返还偶发发现的法律义务。
Georgetown Law J. 2014;102:795-843.
6
[The origin of informed consent].[知情同意的起源]
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005 Oct;25(5):312-27.
7
Legal Challenges in Precision Medicine: What Duties Arising From Genetic and Genomic Testing Does a Physician Owe to Patients?精准医学中的法律挑战：医生对患者的基因和基因组检测负有哪些义务？
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Jul 26;8:663014. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.663014. eCollection 2021.
8
To warn and to control: two distinct legal obligations or variations of a single duty to protect?警示与管控：两项截然不同的法律义务，还是保护单一职责的不同变体？
Behav Sci Law. 2001;19(3):355-73. doi: 10.1002/bsl.451.
9
Avoiding Liability and Other Legal Land Mines in the Evolving Genomics Landscape.避免责任和其他法律地雷在不断发展的基因组学领域。
Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2023 Aug 25;24:333-346. doi: 10.1146/annurev-genom-100722-021725. Epub 2023 Jan 11.
10
A Tarasoff for Europe? A European Human Rights perspective on the duty to protect.欧洲版的塔拉索夫案？从欧洲人权视角看保护义务
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2007 May-Jun;30(3):255-67. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2007.01.001. Epub 2007 Apr 24.
引用本文的文献
1
UNLIMITED MEDICAL LIABILITY?无限医疗责任？
Emory Law J Online. 2022;72.
2
Cases in Precision Medicine: Is There an Obligation to Return Reinterpreted Genetic Results to Former Patients?精准医学案例：是否有义务将重新解读的遗传结果告知以前的患者？
Ann Intern Med. 2023 Apr;176(4):563-567. doi: 10.7326/M22-3682. Epub 2023 Mar 28.
3
Practical considerations for reinterpretation of individual genetic variants.个体遗传变异再诠释的实用考虑。
Genet Med. 2023 May;25(5):100801. doi: 10.1016/j.gim.2023.100801. Epub 2023 Feb 4.
4
How should we address the inevitable harms from non-negligent variant reclassification in predictive genetic testing?在预测性基因检测中，我们应该如何应对非疏忽性变异重新分类不可避免的危害？
J Genet Couns. 2023 Feb;32(1):18-30. doi: 10.1002/jgc4.1638. Epub 2022 Oct 19.
5
Challenges of variant reinterpretation: Opinions of stakeholders and need for guidelines.变异重新解释的挑战：利益相关者的意见和指南的需求。
Genet Med. 2022 Sep;24(9):1878-1887. doi: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.06.002. Epub 2022 Jun 29.
6
An Ethics Checklist for Digital Health Research in Psychiatry: Viewpoint.精神科数字健康研究的伦理学清单：观点。
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Feb 9;24(2):e31146. doi: 10.2196/31146.
7
Of Screening, Stratification, and Scores.关于筛查、分层和评分
J Pers Med. 2021 Jul 28;11(8):736. doi: 10.3390/jpm11080736.
本文引用的文献
1
Can Clinical Genetics Laboratories be Sued for Medical Malpractice?临床遗传学实验室会因医疗过失而被起诉吗？
Ann Health Law Life Sci. 2020 Winter;29(1):153-172.
2
Is there a duty to reinterpret genetic data? The ethical dimensions.是否有义务重新解释基因数据？伦理维度。
Genet Med. 2020 Mar;22(3):633-639. doi: 10.1038/s41436-019-0679-7. Epub 2019 Oct 15.
3
The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results.遗传和基因组研究结果重新解释后联系研究参与者的责任。
Am J Hum Genet. 2019 Apr 4;104(4):578-595. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2019.02.025.
4
Experts reflecting on the duty to recontact patients and research participants; why professionals should take the lead in developing guidelines.专家们对再次联系患者和研究参与者的职责进行反思；为何专业人士应带头制定指导方针。
Eur J Med Genet. 2020 Feb;63(2):103642. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2019.03.006. Epub 2019 Mar 20.
5
The effects of genomic germline variant reclassification on clinical cancer care.基因组种系变异重新分类对临床癌症护理的影响。
Oncotarget. 2019 Jan 11;10(4):417-423. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.26501.
6
Patient re-contact after revision of genomic test results: points to consider-a statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).基因组检测结果修订后的患者重新联系：需考虑的要点——美国医学遗传学与基因组学学会（ACMG）声明
Genet Med. 2019 Apr;21(4):769-771. doi: 10.1038/s41436-018-0391-z. Epub 2018 Dec 22.
7
Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics.临床遗传学服务中患者的再联系：欧洲人类遗传学会的建议。
Eur J Hum Genet. 2019 Feb;27(2):169-182. doi: 10.1038/s41431-018-0285-1. Epub 2018 Oct 11.
8
Prevalence of Variant Reclassification Following Hereditary Cancer Genetic Testing.遗传性癌症基因检测后变异再分类的流行率。
JAMA. 2018 Sep 25;320(12):1266-1274. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.13152.
9
Experiences of patients seeking to participate in variant of uncertain significance reclassification research.寻求参与意义未明变异重新分类研究的患者的经历。
J Community Genet. 2019 Apr;10(2):189-196. doi: 10.1007/s12687-018-0375-3. Epub 2018 Jul 19.
10
The impact of variant classification on the clinical management of hereditary cancer syndromes.变异分类对遗传性癌症综合征临床管理的影响。
Genet Med. 2019 Feb;21(2):426-430. doi: 10.1038/s41436-018-0063-z. Epub 2018 Jun 6.
Zotero 插件