Advertisement

Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 464–474 | Cite as

Agency and Choice in Genetic Counseling: Acknowledging Patients’ Concerns

  • Kieran O’DohertyEmail author
Original Research

Abstract

This paper investigates to what degree patients can be said to effectively manifest agency during the process of genetic counseling for cancer risk. Rather than talk about agency on an abstract level, the discussion is grounded in examples from actual genetic counseling sessions. Past research in this area recognises three dimensions along which clients’ agency can be assessed: the availability of choice; potential prescriptiveness or framing biases in the presentation of options; and whether particular decisions are embedded within broader moral frameworks (in particular, perceived obligation to kin). In this paper it is argued that in addition to these three dimensions, an investigation of agency needs to explore the degree to which the concerns brought to counseling sessions by patients match up with the choices and management strategies offered by genetic counsellors. An analysis of four excerpts from actual counseling sessions is presented to illustrate the case.

Keywords

Agency Australia Breast cancer Choice Discourse analysis Familial cancer Genetic counseling Genetic testing Nondirectiveness Ovarian cancer Risk 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge Graeme Suthers, Joya McCormack, Jacquie Armstrong, Debra Trott and Sally Russell for their assistance with data collection and all things ‘genetic counseling’. My thanks also to Oonagh Corrigan, Madeleine Petersen, Martha Augoustinos, Ian John, Katherine Hodgetts, Alice Hawkins, and three anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Most importantly, I would like to express my gratitude to all the clients of the Familial Cancer Unit who participated in this study.

References

  1. Abrams, K. (1999). From autonomy to agency: feminist perspectives on self-direction. William and Mary Law Review, 40(3), 805.Google Scholar
  2. Bernhardt, B. A., Biesecker, B. B., & Mastromarino, C. L. (2000). Goals, benefits, and outcomes of genetic counseling: client and genetic counsellor assessment. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 94, 189–197. doi: 10.1002/1096-8628(20000918) 94:3<189::AID-AJMG3>3.0.CO;2-E.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouchard, L., Blancquaert, I., Eisinger, F., Foulkes, W. D., Evans, G., Sobol, H., et al. (2004). Prevention and genetic testing for breast cancer: variations in medical decisions. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 1085–1096. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00263-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryan, S., Gill, P., Greenfield, S., Gutridge, K., & Marshall, T. (2006). The myth of agency and patient choice in health care? The case of drug treatments to prevent coronary disease. Social Science & Medicine, 63, 2698–2701. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.07.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burgess, M. M., & d’Agincourt-Canning, L. (2002). Genetic testing for hereditary disease: attending to relational responsibility. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 12(4), 361–372.Google Scholar
  6. Evans, G., & Harris, R. (1996). The ethics of testing for cancer-predisposition genes. In R. Eeles, B. A. J. Ponder, D. F. Easton & A. Horwich (Eds.), Genetic predisposition to cancer (pp. 383–393). London: Chapman Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Finkler, K. (2000). Experiencing the new genetics: family and kinship on the medical frontier. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  8. Finkler, K., Skrzynia, C., & Evans, J. P. (2003). The new genetics and its consequences for family, kinship, medicine and medical genetics. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 403–412. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00365-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foster, C., Watson, M., Moynihan, C., Ardern-Jones, A., & Eeles, R. (2002). Genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer predisposition: cancer burden and responsibility. Journal of Health Psychology, 7(4), 496–484. doi: 10.1177/1359105302007004627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hallowell, N. (1999a). Advising on the management of genetic risk:offering choice or prescribing action? Health Risk & Society, 1(3), 267–280. doi: 10.1080/13698579908406316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hallowell, N. (1999b). Doing the right thing: genetic risk and responsibility. Sociology of Health & Illness, 21(5), 597–621. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.00175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hallowell, N., Foster, C., Eeles, R., Ardern-Jones, A., Murday, V., & Watson, M. (2003). Balancing autonomy and responsibility: the ethics of generating and disclosing genetic information. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 74–83. doi: 10.1136/jme.29.2.74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harper, P. S. (2004). Practical Genetic Counseling (6th ed.). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  14. Michie, S., & Marteau, T. (1996). Genetic counseling: some issues of theory and practice. In T. Marteau & M. Richards (Eds.), The troubled helix: social and psychological implications of the new human genetics (pp. 104–122). Cambridge: Cambridge Universtity Press.Google Scholar
  15. O’Doherty, K. (2005). Risk communication in familial cancer: the discursive management of uncertainty in genetic counseling. Unpublished PhD dissertation. The University of Adelaide: Adelaide. Available online at http://thesis.library.adelaide.edu.au/public/adt-SUA20060502.143737/index.html.
  16. O’Doherty, K. (2006). Risk communication in genetic counseling: a discursive approach to probability. Theory & Psychology, 16(2), 225–256. doi: 10.1177/0959354306062537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. O’Doherty, K., Navarro, D. J., & Crabb, S. (2009). A Qualitative Approach to the Study of Causal Reasoning in Natural Language: The Domain of Genes, Risks and Cancer. Theory & Psychology, 19(4). Google Scholar
  18. Petersen, A. (1999). Counseling the genetically ‘at-risk’: the poetics and politics of ‘non-directiveness’. Health Risk & Society, 1(3), 253–265. doi: 10.1080/13698579908406315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Petersen, A. (2006). The best experts: the narratives of those who have a genetic condition. Social Science & Medicine, 63, 32–42. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pilnick, A. (2004). ‘It’s just one of the best tests that we’ve got at the moment’: the presentation of nuchal translucency screening for fetal abnormality in pregnancy. Discourse & Society, 15(4), 451–465. doi: 10.1177/0957926504043710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prior, L., Wood, F., Gray, J., Pill, R., & Hughes, D. (2002). Making risk visible: the role of images in the assessment of (cancer) genetic risk. Health Risk & Society, 4(3), 241–258. doi: 10.1080/1369857021000016614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Scott, S., Prior, L., Wood, F., & Gray, J. (2005). Repositioning the patient: the implications of being ‘at risk’. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 1869–1879. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Suthers, G. K. (2007). Cancer risks for Australian women with a BRCA1 or a BRCA2 mutation. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 77, 314–319. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2007.04050.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang, C., Gonzalez, R., & Merajver, S. D. (2004). Assessment of genetic testing and related counseling services: current researchand future directions. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 1427–1442. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00337-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weil, J. (2003). Psychosocial genetic counseling in the post-nondirective era: a point of view. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 12(3), 199–211. doi: 10.1023/A:1023234802124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. J. (eds). (2001). Discourse as data: a guide for analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. White, M. T. (1997). “Respect for autonomy” in genetic counseling: an analysis and a proposal. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 6(3), 297–313. doi: 10.1023/A:1025628322278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Whitmarsh, I., Davis, A. M., Skinner, D., & Bailey, D. B. J. (2007). A place for genetic uncertainty: parents valuing an unknown in the meaning of disease. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 1082–1093. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.04.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Williams, C., Ehrich, K., Farsides, B., & Scott, R. (2007). Facilitating choice, framing choice: staff views on widening the scope of preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the UK. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 1094–1105. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.04.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied EthicsThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations