Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agency and Choice in Genetic Counseling: Acknowledging Patients’ Concerns

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Genetic Counseling

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrams, K. (1999). From autonomy to agency: feminist perspectives on self-direction. William and Mary Law Review, 40(3), 805.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Finkler, K. (2000). Experiencing the new genetics: family and kinship on the medical frontier. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, P. S. (2004). Practical Genetic Counseling (6th ed.). London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • O’Doherty, K. (2006). Risk communication in genetic counseling: a discursive approach to probability. Theory & Psychology, 16(2), 225–256. doi:10.1177/0959354306062537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. J. (eds). (2001). Discourse as data: a guide for analysis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics, The University of British Columbia, 227-6356 Agricultural Road, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z2, Canada

    Kieran O’Doherty

Authors
  1. Kieran O’Doherty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kieran O’Doherty.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O’Doherty, K. Agency and Choice in Genetic Counseling: Acknowledging Patients’ Concerns. J Genet Counsel 18, 464–474 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-009-9237-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-009-9237-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation