Ethical values supporting the disclosure of incidental and secondary findings in clinical genomic testing: a qualitative study

Abstract

Background: Incidental findings (IFs) and secondary findings (SFs), being results that are unrelated to the diagnostic question, are the subject of an important debate in the practice of clinical genomic medicine. Arguments for reporting these results or not doing so typically relate to the principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence and beneficence. However, these principles frequently conflict and are insufficient by themselves to come to a conclusion. This study investigates empirically how ethical principles are considered when actually reporting IFs or SFs and how value conflicts are weighed. Methods: A qualitative focus group study has been undertaken, including a multidisciplinary group of professionals from Belgian centres for medical genetics. The data were analysed thematically. Results: All eight Belgian centres participated in this study. Ethical values were frequently referred to for disclosure policies on IFs and SFs. Participants invoked respect for patient autonomy to support the disclosure of IFs and optout options for IFs and SFs, non-maleficence for the professional delineation of reportable IFs and opt-out options for IFs and SFs and (the particular scope of) beneficence for the mandatory reporting of actionable IFs, the delineation of reportable IFs and a current decline of actively pursued SFs. Professional assumptions about patients' genetic literacy were an important factor in the weighing of values. Conclusions: In line with the traditional bioethical discourse, the mandatory reporting of actionable IFs might be interpreted as a "technological, soft paternalism". Restricting patients' choices might be acceptable, but then its motives should be valid and its beneficent outcomes highly plausible. Hence, the presuppositions of technological, soft paternalism -patients' inability to make informed decisions, normative rationality, the efficacy of beneficent outcomes and the delineated spectrum of beneficence -should be approached critically. Moreover, distributive justice should be considered an important value in the delineation of the current scope of the ethical debate on IFs and SFs. This study of guiding values may stimulate the debate on the ethical grounds for a solid policy on IFs and SFs internationally.

The utility of genomic testing in the ophthalmology clinic: A review

“…A consideration when using WES or WGS, which include genes not associated with the phenotypes, is the potential for incidental or secondary findings not related to the clinical reason for undertaking the test. The ethical considerations surrounding the return of incidental or secondary findings have been extensively discussed elsewhere 36,37 . Particular consideration is required when children or infants are involved and/or when the test is being used as a screening tool 38,39 .…”

A principled approach to bioethical regulation of genetic counseling: mapping the bioethical problems of genetic counseling and models for their solution

“…Ряд европейских специалистов по биоэтике рассматривают обязательное сообщение незапрошенной генетической информации или ее сообщение по умолчанию как форму «технологического патернализма». Такое ущемление «права не знать» они связывают с произвольным сужением понятий рационального выбора и блага (Saelaert et. al., 2020).…”

Leveraging population‐based exome screening to impact clinical care: The evolution of variant assessment in the Geisinger MyCode research project

“…In the context of secondary findings from diagnostic exome or genome sequencing, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) proposed disclosing genomic variants that confer risk for diseases with well‐established effective medical interventions (i.e., medically actionable results) (Green et al, 2013; Kalia et al, 2017). However, no such formal guidance exists for the research setting, despite a growing consensus to report results that may impact clinical care (Botkin, Mancher, Busta, & Downey, 2018; Knoppers, Zawati, & Senecal, 2015; Saelaert, Mertes, Moerenhout, De Baere, & Devisch, 2020). Furthermore, as more research groups push to sequence larger and more inclusive cohorts (Ilori et al, 2020; Mapes et al, 2020; Van Hout et al, 2020), there is a growing need for guidance on how to accurately and efficiently identify and report clinically relevant findings to research participants.…”