Peter O'Leary

Advances in genetic technologies raise a multitude of ethical issues, some of which give rise to novel dilemmas for medical practice. One of the most controversial problems arising in clinical genetics is that of confidentiality and who may disclose genetic health information. This paper considers the question of when it is appropriate for health professionals to disclose clinically significant genetic information without patient consent. Existing ethical principles offer little guidance in relation to this issue. We build on suggestions that genetic information may be viewed as collective or shared information, and we introduce the concept of ‘familial comity’ as a fresh way to consider the issues.

Increasing emphasis on genetic research means that growing numbers of human research projects in Australia will involve complex issues related to genetic privacy, familial information and genetic epidemiology. The Office of Population Health Genomics (Department of Health, Western Australia) hosted an interactive workshop to explore the ethical issues involved in the disclosure of genetic information, where researchers and members of human research ethics committees (HRECs) were asked to consider several case studies from an ethical perspective. Workshop participants used a variety of approaches to examine the complex ethical issues encountered, but did not consistently refer to the values and principles outlined in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC 2007) or apply rational ethical approaches. Overall, the data suggested that both researchers and HREC members may benefit from further education and support regarding the application of ethical frameworks to the issues encountered in genetic research.

This paper argues that specific individual informed consent and other forms of consent predicated on a right to autonomy may not in all circumstances be appropriate for the establishment and use of large data sets of health information. We suggest that there are inherent failings in such an approach, shortcomings that we analyse below. We argue that individuals share an obligation to contribute their data, as doing so is cost-free and benefits accrue to the population as a whole. Large health data sets can be considered public goods – goods that are non-rival in consumption and in some cases non-exclusive in use – and contributing to these goods may be an obligation, the meeting of which allows citizens to invest in knowledge infrastructure. The approach argued for here is a variation of a communitarian ethic in which people have an obligation to contribute their data but have no correlative right to expect or receive an individual benefit

AimTo examine the relative cost-effectiveness of predictive genetic tests for familial breast and ovarian cancer provided by Genetic Services of Western Australia.MethodsThe relative cost-effectiveness was assessed using a decision analytic model.ResultsThe cost and outcomes of genetic testing was compared in first-degree relatives of known BRCA1/2 mutation-carriers who have a 50% risk of carrying the mutated gene (intervention group) to individuals with the same a priori risk but who do not undergo a genetic test (control subjects).Since genetic testing enables the restriction of intensive surveillance to individuals with an identified BRCA1/2 gene mutation, net savings in the period observed (age 25-70) were $980-$1008 per woman in the ovarian intervention group and $1681-$1795 per woman in the breast intervention group, and delayed the onset of breast cancer (6mths BRCA1, 3mths BRCA2).Compared to control subjects undergoing population surveillance, it was estimated the onset of breast cancer could be delayed at a total net cost of $3055 (5.1yrs) to $3389 (3.2yrs) for women in the breast intervention group with BRCA1/2 mutations. Since population surveillance is not currently recommended for ovarian cancer, control subjects undergoing no surveillance were compared with the intervention group. The onset of ovarian cancer was delayed at a net cost of $1630 (3.5yrs) to $2509 (1.2years) for women with BRCA1/2 mutations.ConclusionsTesting allows targeted high-level surveillance for gene mutation carriers, which ensures the cost-effective use of resources and reduces cancer-related morbidity if clinical recommendations for intervention are adopted.

AimTo explore new mothers' knowledge of newborn screening, and their attitudes towards issues surrounding sample retention and the potential for blood screening samples to be used for research.MethodsA self-administered mail survey was sent to women who gave birth in Perth, Western Australia during January 2005. A total of 600 women completed the survey.ResultsIt was found that women were aware of newborn screening, however desired further information in order to acquire a more comprehensive knowledge of the test. Further, women reported discomfort with the long-term storage of cards, but they were supportive of using blood samples for medical research, contingent upon the samples being de-identified and parental consent provided.ConclusionsNew mothers need to be provided with comprehensive information about the newborn screening test at a time which is conducive for the assimilation of this information. In addition, whilst supporting health related research using newborn screening samples, new mothers are keen for ethical issues to be sufficiently addressed prior to samples being systematically stored for extended periods of time.