Advertisement

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 103–110 | Cite as

Consent to epistemic interventions: a contribution to the debate on the right (not) to know

  • Niels Nijsingh
Scientific Contribution
  • 192 Downloads

Abstract

The debate on the ‘right (not) to know’ has simmered on for over 30 years. New examples where a right to be informed is contrasted to a right to be kept in ignorance occasionally surface and spark disagreement on the extent to which patients and research subjects have a right to be self-determining concerning the health related information they receive. Up until now, however, this debate has been unsatisfactory with regard to the question what type of rights—if any—are in play here and to what extent they can provide a normative basis for informed consent. This paper provides an analysis of informed consent in the context of ‘epistemic interventions’: interventions which involve the communication of (health-related) information. First, I offer an analysis of the concept of a ‘right not to know’ in the context of consent to epistemic interventions. I argue that the scope of the consent is determined by the extent to which this intervention can be seen as an infringement of the private sphere. After that I show how this analysis affects the scope and standards of informed consent.

Keywords

Right (not) to know Informed consent Unsolicited information Epistemic interventions Genetics Genomics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Marcel Verweij, Annemarie Kalis and Marcus Düwell for comments on earlier drafts of this paper and for their helpful suggestions. Also I am grateful to the Practical Philosophy Colloquium of the Department of Philosophy at Utrecht University and the OZSW Ethics and Health working group for giving me the opportunity to present this paper. Most of all I am deeply indebted to Anne van Bergen, for her devastating criticism and for many constructive sparring sessions.

References

  1. Andorno, R. 2004. The right not to know: An autonomy based approach. Journal of Medical Ethics 30(5): 435–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). 2013. Recommendations on the reporting of incidental findings in clinical whole genome and whole exome sequencing. Trends in Biotechnology 31(8): 439–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Bioethics. 2013. Policystatement: Ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children. Pediatrics 131(3): 620–622.Google Scholar
  4. Beauchamp, T., and J. Childress. 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bottis, M.C. 2000. Comment on a view favoring ignorance of genetic information: Confidentiality, autonomy, beneficence and the right not to know. European Journal of Health Law 7(2): 173–183.Google Scholar
  6. Bredenoord, A.L., N.C. Onland-Moret, and J.J.M. Van Delden. 2011. Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: In favor of a qualified disclosure policy. Human Mutation 32(8): 861–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brownsword, R., and D. Beyleveld. 2007. Consent in the law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Bunnik, E., A.C. Janssens, and M. Schermer. 2013. A tiered-layered-staged model for informed consent in personal genome testing. European Journal of Human Genetics 21: 596–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chadwick, R.F., M. Levitt, and D. Shickle. 1997. The right to know and the right not to know. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  10. Clayton, E.W. 2008. Incidental findings in genetics research using archived DNA. The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 36(2): 286–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chan, B., F.M. Facio, H. Eidem, S.C. Hull, L.G. Biesecker, and B.B.E. Berkman. 2012. Genomic inheritances: Disclosing individual research results from whole-exome sequencing to deceased participants’ relatives. American Journal of Bioethics 12(10): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elias, S., and G.J. Annas. 1994. Generic consent for genetic screening. New England Journal of Medicine 330: 1611–1613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faden, R.R., and T.L. Beauchamp. 1986. A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Harris, J., and K. Keywood. 2001. Ignorance, information and autonomy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22(5): 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Häyry, M., and T. Takala. 2001. Genetic information, rights, and autonomy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22: 403–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Henn, W. 2009. Whole-genome sequencing in diagnostic medicine: Too much information for doctors and patients? Transfusion Medicine and Hemotherapy 36: 280–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hohfeld, W.N. 1923. Fundamental legal conceptions. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kramer, M., N. Simmonds, and H. Steiner. 1998. A debate over rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Laurie, G.T. 1999. In defence of ignorance: Genetic information and the right not to know. European Journal of Health Law 6(2): 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laurie, G.T. 2000. Protecting and promoting privacy in an uncertain world: Further defences of ignorance and the right not to know. European Journal of Health Law 7(2): 185–191.Google Scholar
  21. Manson, N.C., and O. O’Neill. 2007. Rethinking informed consent in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nijsingh, N. 2007. Informed consent and the expansion of newborn screening. In Ethics, prevention, and public health, ed. A. Dawson, and M. Verweij. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. O’Neill, O. 2002. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ost, D.E. 1984. The ‘Right’ not to know. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9(3): 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. President’s Council on Bioethics. (2008). The changing moral focus of newborn screening: An ethical analysis. Washington, DC. http://www.battlebook.org/military/bioethics/Books and Regs/The Changing Moral Focus of Newborn Screening for the Web.pdf (accessed 14/8/2014). Accessed 2 October 2014.
  26. Räikkä, J. 1998. Freedom and a right (not) to know. Bioethics 12(1): 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rigter, T., et al. 2013. Reflecting on earlier experiences with unsolicited findings: Points to consider for next-generation sequencing and informed consent in diagnostics. Human Mutation 34(10): 1322–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rhodes, R. 1998. Genetic links, family ties, and social bonds: Rights and responsibilities in the face of genetic knowledge. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23(1): 10–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rothstein, M.A. 2006. Tiered disclosure options promote the autonomy and well-being of research subjects. The American Journal of Bioethics 6(6): 20–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sheehan, M. 2011. Can broad consent be informed consent? Public Health Ethics 4(3): 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Steinsbekk, K.S. 2011. Biobanks—when is re-consent necessary? Public Health Ethics 4(3): 236–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Takala, T. 1999. The right to genetic ignorance confirmed. Bioethics 13(3–4): 288–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. UNESCO. 2003. UNESCO International Declaration on Human Genetic Data http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=17720&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. Accessed 31 March 2015.
  34. Van El, C.G., et al. 2013. Whole-genome sequencing in health care; recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. European Journal of Human Genetics 21: 580–584.Google Scholar
  35. Wilson, J. 2005. To know or not to know? Genetic ignorance, autonomy and paternalism. Bioethics 19(5–6): 492–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wolf, S.M. 2008. The challenge of incidental findings. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36(2): 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Independent scholarUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations