Seminars in Oncology
Volume 34, Issue 5 , Pages 435-443 , October 2007

Ethical and Legal Aspects of Cancer Genetic Testing

  • Kenneth Offit

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to Kenneth Offit, MD, MPH, Clinical Genetics Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
    • ,
  • Peter Thom

References 

  1. Statement of the American Society of Clinical Oncology: Genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:1730–1736
  2. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: Genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2397–2406
  3. Green MJ, Botkin JR. “Genetic exceptionalism” in medicine: clarifying the differences between genetic and nongenetic tests. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:571–575
  4. Everett M. Can you keep a (genetic) secret? (The genetic privacy movement). J Genet Couns. 2004;13:273–291
  5. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2001;
  6. Offit K. Clinical Cancer Genetics: Risk Management and Counseling. New York: Wiley Liss; 1998;
  7. American Medical Association: Opinions on Social Policy Issues, 1/4/05 update. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/8295.html. Accessed 1/5/07
  8. United States Department of Health and Human Services: Office for Human Research Protection (OHRP): Policy Guidance [by topics], 12/28/06 update. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/index.html. Accessed 1/5/07
  9. The National Women’s Health Information Center: Position Paper: Hereditary Susceptibility Testing for Breast Cancer, March 1996, 5/7/02 update. http://www.4woman.gov/napbc/catalog.wci/napbc/hspospap.htm. Accessed 1/5/07.
  10. National Information Resource on Ethics and Human Genetics, 3/06 update: Accessed 1/5/07. http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/nirehg/genlinks.htm
  11. Genetics & Public Policy Center: Accessed 1/5/06. http://www.dnapolicy.org/
  12. AMA: Opinions on Social Policy Issues, E-2.138, Genetic Testing of Children. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/8439.html. Accessed 1/5/07
  13. American Society of Human Genetics Board of Directors, American College of Medical Genetics Board of Directors. Points to consider: ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. Am J Hum Genet. 1995;57:1233–1241
  14. National Society of Genetic Counselors Position statement: Prenatal and Childhood Testing for Adult-Onset Disorders, adopted 2005. http://www.nsgc.org/about/Prenatal_two. Accessed 1/5/07
  15. Rhodes R. Why test children for adult-onset genetic diseases?. Mt Sinai J Med. 2006;73:609–616
  16. Cauffman E, Steinberg L. (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescence: Why adolescents may be less culpable than adults. Behav Sci Law. 2000;18:741–760
  17. Offit K, Kohut K, Clagett B, et al. Cancer genetic testing and assisted reproduction. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1–8
  18. The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association: Ethical issues related to prenatal genetic testing. Arch Fam Med. 1994;3:633–642
  19. Ethics Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. Sex selection and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:S245–S248
  20. British Medical Association: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis with tissue typing, 10/99 update. http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/PDFEthicsBrief68/$FILE/EthicsBrief68.pdf. Accessed 12/03/06
  21. Thornhill AR, deDie-Smulders CE, Geraedts JP, et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium ’Best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)’. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:35–48
  22. Danish Council of Ethics: Microinsemination and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD): Resume of recommendations, 3/05 update. http://www.etiskraad.dk/sw1771.asp. Accessed 12/03/06
  23. The President’s Council on Bioethics: Reproduction and Responsibility: The regulation of new biotechnologies, 3/04 update. http://bioethics.gov/reports/reproductionandresponsibility/index.html. Accessed 12/03/06
  24. Offit K, Sagi M, Hurley K. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for cancer syndromes: A new challenge for preventive medicine. JAMA. 2006;296:2727–2730
  25. Hall MA, Rich SS. Laws restricting health insurers’ use of genetic information: Impact on genetic discrimination. Am J Hum Genet. 2000;66:293–307
  26. Harris M, Winship I, Spriggs M. Controversies and ethical issues in cancer-genetics clinics. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:301–310
  27. Hall MA, McEwen JE, Barton JC, et al. Concerns in a primary care population about genetic discrimination by insurers. Genet Med. 2005;7:311–316
  28. McEwen JE, McCarty K, Reilly PR. A survey of state insurance commissioners concerning genetic testing and life insurance. Am J Hum Genet. 1992;51:785–792
  29. Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory: 135 F.3d 1260, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998)
  30. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Title I and V. US Code 12111—12201, 1990. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/ada.html. Accessed 1/5/07
  31. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): Compliance Manual. vol. 2, section 902, order 9 15.002, 902-945, 6/06 update. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/compliance.html. Accessed 1/5/07.
  32. Patient Privacy Rights. http://www.patientprivacyrights.org/site/PageServer. Accessed 12/06/06
  33. Clinton WJ. Executive Order 13145 of February 8, 2000: to prohibit discrimination in federal employment based on genetic information. Fed Regist. 2000;65:6877–6880
  34. Lapham EV, Kozma C, Weiss JO. Genetic discrimination: Perspectives of consumers. Science. 1996;274:621–624
  35. Statement of Commissioner Paul Steven Miller, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (July 20, 2000): “Genetic information in the workplace.” Before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, US Senate. http://www.genome.gov/10001390. Accessed 1/5/07
  36. Kauff ND, Mitra N, Robson ME, et al. Risk of ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation-negative hereditary breast cancer families. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1382–1384
  37. Katskee v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield: Nebraska 1994 515 N.W.2d 645
  38. Genetic Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility: Evaluating Direct-to-Consumer Marketing—Atlanta, Denver, Raleigh-Durham, and Seattle, 2003. MMWR. 2004;53:603–606
  39. Hudson KL, Murphy JA, Kaufman DJ, et al. Oversight of US genetic testing laboratories. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24:1083–1090
  40. Hudson, K: Testimony before the United States Senate Special Committee on Aging. “At Home DNA Tests: Marketing Scam or Medical Breakthrough?” July 27, 2006. http://www.dnapolicy.org/resources/Testimony_of_Kathy_Hudson_Senate_Aging_7-27-06.pdf. Accessed 12/01/2006
  41. Offit K, Garber J, Grady M, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Curriculum: Cancer Genetics and Cancer Predisposition Testing. (ed 2). Alexandria, VA: ASCO Publishing; 2004;
  42. Robson M, Offit K. Management of women at hereditary risk for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:154–162
  43. Kauff ND, Satagopan JM, Robson ME, et al. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1609–1615
  44. Garber J, Offit K. Hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:276–292
  45. Offit K, Groeger E, Turner S, et al. The “duty to warn” a patient’s family members about hereditary disease risks. JAMA. 2004;292:1469–1473
  46. Burke T, Rosenbaum S. Molloy v Meier and the expanding standard of medical care: Implications for public health policy and practice. Public Health Rep. 2005;120:209–210
  47. Andrews LB. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1994;
  48. Reilly PR, Boshar MF, Holtzman SH. Ethical issues in genetic research: disclosure and informed consent. Nat Genet. 1997;15:16–20
  49. Miletich S, Armstrong K, Mayo J. Life or death question, but debate was hidden for years. 2006;Seattle Times, October 19
  50. Carstairs VDL, Morris R. Deprivation and Health in Scotland. Aberdeen, Scotland: Aberdeen University Press; 1991;
  51. Halbert CH, Kessler L, Stopfer JE, et al. Low rates of acceptance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 test results among African American women at increased risk for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. Genet Med. 2006;8:576–582
  52. Halbert CH, Kessler LJ, Mitchell E. Genetic testing for inherited breast cancer risk in African Americans. Cancer Invest. 2005;23:285–295
  53. Doty MM, Holmgren AL. Health care disconnect: gaps in coverage and care for minority adults. Findings from the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey (2005). Issue Brief, Commonwealth Fund. 2006;21:1–12
  54. Futreal PA, Coin L, Marshall M, et al. A census of human cancer genes. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4:177–183
  55. Jensen K, Murray F. Intellectual property (Enhanced: Intellectual property landscape of the human genome). Science. 2005;310:239–240
  56. Caulfield T, Cook-Deegan RM, Kieff FS, et al. Evidence and anecdotes: An analysis of human gene patenting controversies. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24:1091–1094
  57. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2002). The ethics of patenting DNA: A discussion paper. http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/theethicsofpatentingdna.pdf. Accessed 12/15/06
  58. Matthijs G. The European opposition against the BRCA gene patents. Fam Cancer. 2006;5:95–102
  59. Madey v. Duke University: 307 F. 3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (No. 02-1007)
  60. Cyranoski D. Intellectual property: This protein belongs to…. Nature. 2003;426:10–11

 Supported by the Weissenbach, Southworth, Niehaus Family Fund, the Lymphoma Foundation, and the Koodish Fellowship.

PII: S0093-7754(07)00144-3

doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2007.07.007

Seminars in Oncology
Volume 34, Issue 5 , Pages 435-443 , October 2007

Article Tools