'There Is a Lot of Good in Knowing, but There Is Also a Lot of Downs': Public Views on Ethical Considerations in Population Genomic Screening - PubMed

'There Is a Lot of Good in Knowing, but There Is Also a Lot of Downs': Public Views on Ethical Considerations in Population Genomic Screening - PubMed

'There Is a Lot of Good in Knowing, but There Is Also a Lot of Downs': Public Views on Ethical Considerations in Population Genomic Screening

Amelia K Smit 1 2 3, Gillian Reyes-Marcelino 2, Louise Keogh 4, Anne E Cust 2 3, Ainsley J Newson 5

Affiliations 

• PMID: 32434901
 
• DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105934

Abstract

Publics are key stakeholders in population genomic screening and their perspectives on ethical considerations are relevant to programme design and policy making. Using semi-structured interviews, we explored social views and attitudes towards possible future provision of personalised genomic risk information to populations to inform prevention and/or early detection of relevant conditions. Participants were members of the public (n=30) who had received information on their personal genomic risk of melanoma as part of a research project. The focus of the analysis presented here is participants' views regarding ethical considerations relevant to population genomic screening more generally. Data were analysed thematically and four key themes related to ethical considerations were identified: (i) personal responsibility for health: 'forewarned is forearmed'; (ii) perceptions of, and responses to, genetic fatalism; (iii) implications for parenting and reproduction; (iv) divided views on choosing to receive genomic risk information. Ethical considerations underlying these themes include the valorisation of information and choice, paternalism, non-directiveness and increasing responsibilisation of individuals in health and healthcare. These findings arguably indicate a thin public conceptualisation of population genomic testing, which draws heavily on how these themes tend to be described in existing social discourses. Findings suggest that further public engagement is required to increase complexity of debate, to consider (for example) the appropriate place of individual and social interests in population genomic testing. Further discernment of relevant ethical approaches, drawing on ethical frameworks from both public health and clinical settings, will also assist in determining the appropriate implementation of population genomic screening for complex conditions.

Keywords: ethics; genetic screening/testing; population policy; public health ethics.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Similar articles

• Stakeholders views on the ethical aspects of oocyte banking for third-party assisted reproduction: a qualitative interview study with donors, recipients and professionals.

  Kool EM, van der Graaf R, Bos AME, Pieters JJPM, Custers IM, Fauser BCJM, Bredenoord AL.Hum Reprod. 2019 May 1;34(5):842-850. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dez032.PMID: 30927419
• Dementia -- Caring, Ethics, Ethnical and Economical Aspects: A Systematic Review [Internet].

  Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment.Stockholm: Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU); 2008 Jun. SBU Assessment No. 172.PMID: 28876770 Free Books & Documents. Review.
• A qualitative systematic review of internal and external influences on shared decision-making in all health care settings.

  Truglio-Londrigan M, Slyer JT, Singleton JK, Worral P.JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2012;10(58):4633-4646. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2012-432.PMID: 27820528
• Community views and perspectives on public engagement in health technology assessment decision making.

  Wortley S, Tong A, Howard K.Aust Health Rev. 2017 Mar;41(1):68-74. doi: 10.1071/AH15221.PMID: 27050156
• Ethical, social and economic issues in familial breast cancer: a compilation of views from the E.C. Biomed II Demonstration Project.

  Steel M, Smyth E, Vasen H, Eccles D, Evans G, Møller P, Hodgson S, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Chang-Claude J, Caligo M, Morrison P, Haites N.Dis Markers. 1999 Oct;15(1-3):125-31. doi: 10.1155/1999/564893.PMID: 10595265 Free PMC article. Review.