Medicine Studies

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 143–153 | Cite as

Predictive Genetic Testing, Autonomy and Responsibility for Future Health

Original Paper


Individual autonomy is a concept highly appreciated in modern Western societies. Its significance is reflected by the central importance and broad use of the model of informed consent in all fields of medicine. In predictive genetic testing, individual autonomy gains particular importance, for what is in focus here is not so much a concrete medical treatment but rather options for taking preventive measures and the influence that the test results have on long-term lifestyle and preferences. Based on an analysis of autonomy-related issues in predictive genetic diagnosis and genetic screening programmes, this contribution stresses the central relevance of a broad notion of autonomy for the discussion of ethical issues raised in connection with predictive genetic testing and genetic screening programmes. Only against the background of such a broad notion of autonomy, which stresses not only free and informed decision-making but also the relevance of long-term prospects for leading a self-determined life in familial and social contexts, can the manifold autonomy-related issues linked to predictive genetic testing be given adequate consideration.


Genetics, medical Personal autonomy Informed consent Ethics, medical Bioethics 


  1. Allen, K., and R. Williamson. 1999. Should we genetically test everyone for haemochromatosis? Journal of Medical Ethics 25: 209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists & American College of Medical Genetics. 2001. Preconception and prenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis: Clinical and laboratory guideline. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, G. 1999. Nondirectiveness in prenatal genetics: Patients read between the lines. Nursing Ethics 6: 126–136.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, G. 2007. Patient decision-making for clinical genetics. Nursing Inquiry 14: 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andorno, R. 2004. The right not to know: An autonomy based approach. Journal of Medical Ethics 30: 435–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bailey, D.B., D. Skinner, A.M. Davis, I. Whitmarsh, and C. Powell. 2008. Ethical, legal, and social concerns about expanded newborn screening: Fragile X syndrome as a prototype for emerging issues. Pediatrics 121: e693–e704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ball, David., Audrey. Tyler, and Peter. Harper. 1994. Predictive testing of adults and children. In Genetic counselling: Practice and principles, ed. A. Clarke, 63–86. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Barnoy, S., and N. Tabak. 2007. Israeli nurses and genetic information disclosure. Nursing Ethics 14: 280–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benn, Stanley. 1988. A theory of freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berlin, Isaiah. 1969. ‘Two concepts of liberty. In Four essays on liberty, ed. I. Berlin, 118–172. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Burson, C.M., and K.R. Markey. 2001. Genetic counseling issues in predicitve genetic testing for familial adult-onset neurologic diseases. Seminars in Pediatric Neurology 8: 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calderon-Margalit, R., and O. Paltiel. 2004. Prevention of breast cancer in women who carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Cancer 112: 357–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chadwick, Ruth. 1997. The philosophy of the right to know and the right not to know. In The right to know and the right not to know, ed. R. Chadwick, M. Levitt, and D. Shickle, 13–22. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  14. Collins, F.S., and A.E. Guttmacher. 2001. Genetics moves into the medical mainstream. Journal of the American Medical Association 286: 2322–2324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Council of Europe (1997) ‘Convention on human rights and biomedicine’. Available at:
  16. Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. 1998. Multiplex genetic testing. Hastings Center Report 28(4): 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis, D.S. 1997. Genetic dilemmas and the child’s right to an open future. Hastings Center Report 27(2): 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dawson, Angus., and Marcel. Verweij. 2007. Introduction: Ethics, prevention, and public health. In Ethics, Prevention, and Public Health, ed. A. Dawson, and M. Verweij, 1–12. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dworkin, Gerald. 1988. The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elias, S., and G.J. Annas. 1994. Generic consent for genetic screening. New England Journal of Medicine 330: 1611–1613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Evers-Kiebooms, G., K. Nys, P. Harper, M. Zoeteweij, A. Dürr, G. Jacopini, C. Yapijakis, and S. Simpson. 2002. Predictive DNA-testing for Huntington’s disease and reproductive decision making: A European collaborative study. European Journal of Human Genetics 10: 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Faden, Ruth.R., and Tom.L. Beauchamp. 1986. A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Feero, W.G., A.E. Guttmacher, and F.S. Collins. 2008. The genome gets personal—almost. Journal of the American Medical Association 299: 1351–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feinberg, Joel. 1980. The child’s right to an open future. In Whose child? Children’s rights, parental authority, and state power, ed. W. Aiken, and H. LaFollette, 124–153. Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  25. Fletcher, Joseph. 1988. The ethics of genetic control. Ending reproductive roulette. Buffalo & New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  26. Foster, C., D.G.R. Evans, R. Eeles, D. Eccles, S. Ashley, L. Brooks, R. Davidson, J. Mackay, P.J. Morrison, and M. Watson. 2002. Predictive testing for BCRA1/2: Attributes, risk perception and management in a multi-centre clinical cohort. British Journal of Cancer 86: 1209–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fulda, K.G., and K. Lykens. 2006. Ethical issues in predictive genetic testing: A public health perspective. Journal of Medical Ethics 32: 143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Godard, B., S. Raeburn, and M. Pembrey. 2003. Genetic information and testing in insurance and employment: Technical, social and ethical issues. European Journal of Human Genetics 11(2): 123–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hall, W.D., K.I. Morley, and J.C. Lucke. 2004. The prediction of disease risk in genomic medicine. EMBO Reports 5: S22–S26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hildt, Elisabeth. 2006. Autonomie in der biomedizinischen Ethik. Genetische Diagnostik und selbstbestimmte Lebensgestaltung. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  31. Hoedemaekers, R., and H. ten Have. 1998. Geneticization: The Cyprus paradigm. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23: 274–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hogarth, S., G. Javitt, and D. Melzer. 2008. The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 9: 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Husted, Jörgen. 1997. Autonomy and a right not to know. In The right to know and the right not to know, ed. R. Chadwick, M. Levitt, and D. Shickle, 55–68. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  34. Khoury, M.J., L.L. McCabe, and E.R.B. McCabe. 2003. Population screening in the age of genomic medicine. New England Journal of Medicine 348: 50–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kielstein, R., and H.M. Sass. 1992. Right not to know or duty to know? Prenatal screening for polycystic renal disease. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17: 395–405.Google Scholar
  36. Laurie, G. 2004. A response to Andorno. Journal of Medical Ethics 30: 439–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lilani, A. 2005. Ethical issues and policy analysis for genetic testing: Huntington’s disease as a paradigm for diseases with a late onset. Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics 11(2): 28–34.Google Scholar
  38. Lindblad, A.N. 2001. To test or not to test: an ethical conflict with presymptomatic testing of individuals at 25% risk for Huntington’s disorder. Clinical Genetics 60: 442–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Malm, H.M. 1999. Medical screening and the value of early detection. When unwarranted faith leads to unethical recommendations. Hastings Center Report 29(1): 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marteau, T.M., and R.T. Croyle. 1998. The new genetics: Psychological responses to genetic testing. British Medical Journal 316: 693–696.Google Scholar
  41. McPherson, E. 2006. Genetic diagnosis and testing in clinical practice. Clinical Medicine & Research 4: 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nijsingh, Niels. 2007. Informed consent and the expansion of newborn screening. In Ethics, prevention, and public health, ed. A. Dawson, and M. Verweij, 198–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ossa, D.F., and A. Towse. 2004. Genetic screening, health care and the insurance industry. European Journal of Health Economics 5: 116–121.Google Scholar
  44. Parsons, E.P., A.J. Clarke, K. Hood, et al. 2002. Newborn screening for Duchenne muscular dystrophy: A psychosocial study. Archives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & Neonatal Edition 86: 91–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Paul, Diane.B. 1999. PKU screening: Competing agendas, converging stories. In The practices of human genetics, ed. M. Fortun, and E. Mendelsohn, 185–195. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  46. Quante, Michael. 1997. Ethische Probleme mit dem Konzept der informierten Zustimmung im Kontext humangenetischer Beratung und Diagnostik. In Perspektiven der Humangenetik, ed. F. Petermann, S. Wiedebusch, and M. Quante, 209–227. Paderborn: Schöningh.Google Scholar
  47. Raz, Joseph. 1986. The morality of freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sass, H.M. 1996. Copernican challenge of genetic prediction in human medicine. Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik 4: 67–79.Google Scholar
  49. Schulman, J.D., S.H. Black, A. Handyside, and W.E. Nance. 1996. Preimplantation genetic testing for Huntington disease and certain other dominantly inherited disorders. Clinical Genetics 49: 57–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shaw, M.W. 1987. Testing for the Huntington gene—a right to know, a right not to know, or a duty to know? American Journal of Medical Genetics 26: 243–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shickle, D., and R. Chadwick. 1994. The ethics of screening: Is ‚screeningitis’ an incurable disease? Journal of Medical Ethics 20: 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stone, D.H., and S. Stewart. 1996. Screening and the new genetics; a public health perspective on the ethical debate. Journal of Public Health Medicine 18: 3–5.Google Scholar
  53. Tassicker, R., J. Savulescu, L. Skene, et al. 2003. Prenatal diagnosis requests for Huntington’s disease when the father is at risk and does not want to know his genetic status: Clinical, legal, and ethical viewpoints. British Medical Journal 326: 331–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taylor, S.D. 2004. Predictive genetic test decisions for Huntington’s disease: Context, appraisal and new moral imperatives. Social Science & Medicine 58: 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tibben, A. 2007. Predicitve testing for Huntington’s disease. Brain Research Bulletin 72: 165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tymstra, T. 1989. The imperative character of medical technology and the meaning of “anticipated decision regret”. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 5: 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tymstra, T. 2007. “At least we tried everything”: About binary thinking, anticipated decision regret, and the imperative character of medical technology. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology 28: 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. UNESCO (1997) ‘Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights’, available at:
  59. UNESCO (2003) ‘International Declaration on Human Genetic Data’, available at:
  60. Wachbroit, R. 1998. The question not asked: The challenge of pleiotropic genetic tests. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8: 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wear, Stephen. 1993. Informed consent—patient autonomy and physician beneficence within clinical medicine. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  62. Wilcke, J.T. 1998. Late onset genetic disease: Where ignorance is bliss, is it folly to inform relatives? British Medical Journal 317: 744–747.Google Scholar
  63. World Health Organization (1997) Proposed international guidelines on ethical issues in medical genetics and genetic services. Available at:

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations