Jerry Kaye

Despite its focus on consent the new Human Tissue Act 2004 allows for testing without consent where a relative could benefitIn recognition of the fact that genetic test results in people can have implications for close relatives, the new Human Tissue Act 2004 allows for a direction to access a person’s tissue so that testing can be carried out for the benefit of a relative, without the consent of that person. Clinical practice governed by common law and statute, before this act, acknowledged that the disclosure, without consent, of the results of a genetic test, is ethically permissible in extreme situations for the benefit of a relative. New testing for the benefit of a relative without donor consent challenges the principle that informed or adequate consent should be obtained before a genetic test with considerable predictive powers is carried out. The debate surrounding the analogous situation of HIV testing concluded that in very rare cases, disclosure of an HIV result without consent may be justified, but testing without consent is a professional misconduct. This part of the legislation is controversial and deserves further debate. The Human Tissue Authority should take measures to limit the potential harm that can be caused by this provision.IntroductionAfter much debate, the new Human Tissue Act 2004 was passed by parliament in November 2004. Implementation of this act may be staggered, but it will be fully operational in May 2006. This act has several provisions that have implications in clinical practice for the use of stored tissue or samples containing cells. These provisions allow the Human Tissue Authority to permit access to human tissue for the purpose of obtaining scientific or medical information about a person for the benefit of another family member, without the consent of the donor . …

Biobanks are increasingly being created specifically for research purposes. Concomitantly, we are seeing significant and evolving shifts in research ethics in relation to biobanking. Three discrete shifts are identified in this article. The first extends the ethical focus beyond the protection of human subjects to the promotion of broader community benefits of research utilizing biobanked resources, and an expectation that these benefits will be shared. The second involves the evolution of the traditional consent paradigm for future research uses of biobanks resources that are not in contemplation at the time of donation. The third involves a move away from single project management to more dynamic governance accountability to research participants and the public. These shifts may take different local and institutional forms but share common recognizable elements

Clinicians, as well as other health-care professionals in genetics clinics, may find themselves in the position where they must consider whether it would be appropriate to offer a diagnostic genetic test to an adolescent. While a clinician's decision to offer a diagnostic genetic test may be straightforward in clinical terms, the dynamics of family interaction and circumstances may make the decision-making process more complicated. Disagreement between parent and child place clinicians in a difficult position and they must be clear about the scope of their professional responsibility and obligations, to both parents and the adolescent. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the Gillick principles and statutory requirements regarding the genetic testing of adolescents. While I will discuss the clinician's obligations, these legal requirements also have applicability to other health-care professionals, such as genetic counsellors, working in genetics clinics