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, access via your institution.
References
Abrams, K. (1999). From autonomy to agency: feminist perspectives on self-direction. William and Mary Law Review, 40(3), 805.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Finkler, K. (2000). Experiencing the new genetics: family and kinship on the medical frontier. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Harper, P. S. (2004). Practical Genetic Counseling (6th ed.). London: Arnold.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. J. (eds). (2001). Discourse as data: a guide for analysis. London: Sage.
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.
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.
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.
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
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-009-9237-9
Keywords
- Agency
- Australia
- Breast cancer
- Choice
- Discourse analysis
- Familial cancer
- Genetic counseling
- Genetic testing
- Nondirectiveness
- Ovarian cancer
- Risk