Decision-Making About Inherited Cancer Risk: Exploring Dimensions of Genetic Responsibility
- 365 Downloads
Since genetic information has implications for family members, some choices about genetic risk may be influenced by perceptions of responsibility to relatives. Drawing upon 25 semi-structured interviews with test recipients in Canada, this study explored decisions about inherited breast-ovarian and colon cancer. Qualitative data analysis revealed the pervasive significance of genetic responsibility in test decisions. We highlight three dimensions of genetic responsibility: 1) to know about the self for self; 2) to know about the self for others; 3) to know about the self to oblige others to know. It is argued that these dimensions of genetic responsibility have implications for test decisions, family relationships and other family members’ desire to know (or not know) and to act (or not act) with respect to their own genetic risk. In particular, genetic responsibility may play out as a framing of a relative’s moral obligation to know their risk that could obviate any interest they might have in not knowing. We conclude that perceptions of responsibility to—and of−other family members be thoroughly explored in genetic counseling sessions.
KeywordsInherited breast-ovarian cancer Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer Genetic responsibility Genetic testing
We thank participants for their time and interest in this study. The project was funded by the Ontario Implementation Committee for Cancer Genetics Services (funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care). The views expressed are those of the authors.
- Canellopoulou-Bottis, M. (2000). Comment on a view favouring ignorance of genetic information: confidentiality, autonomy, beneficence and the right not to know. European Journal of Health Law, 2, 185–191.Google Scholar
- Clarke, A. (2003). Commentary. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 80–82.Google Scholar
- Easton, F., Ford, D., Bishop, D., & the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. (1995). Breast and ovarian cancer incidence in BRCA1 mutation carriers. American Journal of Human Genetics, 56, 265–271.Google Scholar
- Holt, K. (2006). What do we tell the children? Contrasting the disclosure choices of two HD families regarding risk status and predictive genetic testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15(4), 253–265.Google Scholar
- Kenen, R. (1994). The Human Genome Project: Creator of the potentially sick, potentially vulnerable and potentially stigmatized? In I. Robinson (Ed.), Life and death under high technology medicine, pp. 49–64. London: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
- Laurie, G. (2000). Protecting and promoting privacy in an uncertain world: Further defenses of ignorance and the right not to know. European Journal of Health Law, 7, 185–191.Google Scholar
- Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (1993). Genetic screening: Ethical issues. Available online at https://doi.org/www.nuffieldbioethics.org
- Ramsey, S., Wilson, S., Spencer, A., Geidzinska, A., & Newcomb, P. (2003). Attitudes towards genetic screening for predisposition to colon cancer among cancer patients, their relatives and members of the community. Community Genetics, 6, 29–36.Google Scholar
- Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Osborn, M. (1997). Interpretative phenomenological analysis and the psychology of health and illness. In L. Yardley (Ed.), Material discourses of health and illness, pp. 68–91. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Wilson, B., Forrest, K., van Teijlingen, E., McKee, L., Haites, N., Matthews, E., et al. (2004). Family communication about genetic risk: The little that is known. Community Genetics, 7(1), 15–24.Google Scholar