Professional Ambivalence: Accounts of Ethical Practice in Childhood Genetic Testing
- First Online:
Childhood genetic testing raises complex ethical and moral dilemmas for both families and professionals. In the family sphere, the role of communication is a key aspect in the transmission of ‘genetic responsibility’ between adults and children. In the professional sphere, genetic responsibility is an interactional accomplishment emerging from the sometimes competing views over what constitutes the ‘best interests’ of the child in relation to parental preferences on the one hand, and professional judgements on the other. In the present paper we extend our previous research into parental accounts of childhood genetic testing and explore the ethical accounts of professionals in research interviews. Interviews (n = 20) were conducted with professional practitioners involved in the genetic diagnosis and management of children and their families. We first identify four inter-related themes—juxtaposition of parental rights vis-à-vis child’s autonomy, elicitation of the child’s autonomy, avoidance of parental responsibility and recognition of professional uncertainty. Then, using Rhetorical Discourse Analysis, we examine the range of discourse devices through which ethical accounts are situationally illustrated: contrast, reported speech, constructed dialogue, character and event work. An overarching device in these ethical accounts is the use of extreme case scenarios, which reconstruct dilemmas as justifications of professional conduct. While acknowledging ambivalence, our analysis suggests that professional judgement is not a simple matter of implementing ethical principles but rather of managing the practical conditions and consequences of interactions with parents and children. We conclude that more attention is needed to understand the way professional practitioners formulate judgements about ethical practice.
KeywordsProfessional ethics Judgement Accounts Genetic counseling Genetic testing of children Rhetorical discourse analysis
- Antaki, C. (1988). Analyzing everyday explanation: A case book of methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Boddington, P. and Gregory, M. (2008) Adolescent carrier testing in practice: the impact of legal rulings and problems with “Gillick competence”. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 29 (online): doi:10.1007/s10897-008-9192-x.
- Bosk, C. (1992). All god’s mistakes: Genetic Counseling in a Paediatric Clinic. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Clarke, A., & Flinter, F. (1996). The genetic testing of children: A clinical perspective. In T. Marteau, & M. Richards (Eds.), The troubled helix: Social and psychological implications of the new Human genetics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Dingwall, R. (1997). Accounts, interviews and observation. In G. Miller, & R. Dingwall (Eds.), Context and method in qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Forrest, K., Simpson, S. A., Wilson, B. J., van Teijlingen, E. R., McKee, L., Haites, N., & Matthews, E. (2003). To tell or not to tell: barriers and facilitators in family communication about genetic risk. Clinical Genetics, 64(4), 317–326. doi:10.1034/j.1399-0004.2003.00142.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hamann, H. A., Croyle, R. T., Venne, V. L., Baty, B. J., Smith, K. R., & Botkin, J. R. (2000). Attitudes toward the genetic testing of children among adults in a Utah-based kindred tested for a BRCA1 mutation. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 92, 25–32. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(20000501)92:1<25::AID-AJMG5>3.0.CO;2-Y.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Maley, J. A. (1994). An ethicscasebook for genetic counsellors. Charlottesville, VA: Center for Biomedical Ethics and Division of Medical Genetics, University of Virginia.Google Scholar
- McCarthy Veach, P., Bartels, D. M., & LeRoy, B. S. (2001). Ethical and professional challenges posed by patients with genetic concerns: a report of focus group discussions with genetic counselors, physicians, and nurses. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 10(2), 97–119. doi:10.1023/A:1009487513618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McConkie-Rosell, A., Spiridigliozzi, G. A., Rounds, K., Dawson, D. V., Sullivan, J. A., Burgess, D., & Lachiewicz, A. M. (1999). Parental attitudes regarding carrier testing in children at risk for fragile X syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 82, 206–211. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19990129)82:3<206::AID-AJMG2>3.0.CO;2-6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rapp, R. (1988). Chromosomes and communication: the discourse of genetic counseling. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 2, 144–157.Google Scholar
- Sarangi, S., Brookes-Howell, L., Bennert, K., & Clarke, A. (2009). Psychological and sociomoral frames in genetic counselling for predictive testing. In C. N. Candlin, & S. Sarangi (Eds.), Communication in professions and organisations. Handbook of applied linguistics 3. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar