A duty to recontact in the context of genetics: futuristic or realistic?

Corrette Ploem, Colin Mitchell, Wim van Harten, Sjef Gevers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)
42 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Medical genetic testing, ‘next generation sequencing’, is increasingly generating data that could become useful for patients after they have been discharged from care. If new information is discovered that links a disease to a specific mutation, do health professionals have a legal duty to recontact their patients? Apart from other concerns (such as respecting the patient’s right not to know), in many cases, this would require re-evaluation or re-analysis of the data. Taking such issues into account, we conclude that, at least at this point in time, it is not arguable that there is an unconditional duty of this kind. Health professionals should always do what can be reasonably expected from them to do justice to the patient’s right to information. When there is reason to believe that recontacting would be of significant clinical relevance for the patient, they should do so, unless efforts and costs involved would be disproportional.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)537-553
Number of pages17
JournalEuropean Journal of Health Law
Volume25
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

Duty to Recontact
patient's rights
health professionals
Patient Rights
right to information
justice
Health
Medical Genetics
Social Justice
Genetic Testing
Disease
costs
evaluation
Costs and Cost Analysis
Mutation

Cite this

Ploem, Corrette ; Mitchell, Colin ; van Harten, Wim ; Gevers, Sjef. / A duty to recontact in the context of genetics : futuristic or realistic?. In: European Journal of Health Law. 2018 ; Vol. 25, No. 5. pp. 537-553.
@article{bb3bb85cce324c54a9b95e8f7677ce53,
title = "A duty to recontact in the context of genetics: futuristic or realistic?",
abstract = "Medical genetic testing, ‘next generation sequencing’, is increasingly generating data that could become useful for patients after they have been discharged from care. If new information is discovered that links a disease to a specific mutation, do health professionals have a legal duty to recontact their patients? Apart from other concerns (such as respecting the patient’s right not to know), in many cases, this would require re-evaluation or re-analysis of the data. Taking such issues into account, we conclude that, at least at this point in time, it is not arguable that there is an unconditional duty of this kind. Health professionals should always do what can be reasonably expected from them to do justice to the patient’s right to information. When there is reason to believe that recontacting would be of significant clinical relevance for the patient, they should do so, unless efforts and costs involved would be disproportional.",
author = "Corrette Ploem and Colin Mitchell and {van Harten}, Wim and Sjef Gevers",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1163/15718093-12255399",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "537--553",
journal = "European Journal of Health Law",
issn = "0929-0273",
publisher = "Martinus Nijhoff",
number = "5",

}

A duty to recontact in the context of genetics : futuristic or realistic? / Ploem, Corrette; Mitchell, Colin; van Harten, Wim; Gevers, Sjef.

In: European Journal of Health Law, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2018, p. 537-553.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A duty to recontact in the context of genetics

T2 - futuristic or realistic?

AU - Ploem, Corrette

AU - Mitchell, Colin

AU - van Harten, Wim

AU - Gevers, Sjef

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Medical genetic testing, ‘next generation sequencing’, is increasingly generating data that could become useful for patients after they have been discharged from care. If new information is discovered that links a disease to a specific mutation, do health professionals have a legal duty to recontact their patients? Apart from other concerns (such as respecting the patient’s right not to know), in many cases, this would require re-evaluation or re-analysis of the data. Taking such issues into account, we conclude that, at least at this point in time, it is not arguable that there is an unconditional duty of this kind. Health professionals should always do what can be reasonably expected from them to do justice to the patient’s right to information. When there is reason to believe that recontacting would be of significant clinical relevance for the patient, they should do so, unless efforts and costs involved would be disproportional.

AB - Medical genetic testing, ‘next generation sequencing’, is increasingly generating data that could become useful for patients after they have been discharged from care. If new information is discovered that links a disease to a specific mutation, do health professionals have a legal duty to recontact their patients? Apart from other concerns (such as respecting the patient’s right not to know), in many cases, this would require re-evaluation or re-analysis of the data. Taking such issues into account, we conclude that, at least at this point in time, it is not arguable that there is an unconditional duty of this kind. Health professionals should always do what can be reasonably expected from them to do justice to the patient’s right to information. When there is reason to believe that recontacting would be of significant clinical relevance for the patient, they should do so, unless efforts and costs involved would be disproportional.

U2 - 10.1163/15718093-12255399

DO - 10.1163/15718093-12255399

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 537

EP - 553

JO - European Journal of Health Law

JF - European Journal of Health Law

SN - 0929-0273

IS - 5

ER -