Rectifying or Reinforcing? The (In)Equity Implications of Recontacting Practices in Genomic Medicine

IF 2.3 3区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Hastings Center Report Pub Date : 2024-12-21 DOI:10.1002/hast.4926
Michael P. Mackley, Hanna Faghfoury, Lauren Chad
{"title":"Rectifying or Reinforcing? The (In)Equity Implications of Recontacting Practices in Genomic Medicine","authors":"Michael P. Mackley,&nbsp;Hanna Faghfoury,&nbsp;Lauren Chad","doi":"10.1002/hast.4926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The practice of recontact in genomic medicine has the power to help rectify long-standing inequities in genetic testing. However, if not delivered systematically, recontacting practices also have the potential to reinforce these same inequities. Recontact, which occurs when contact between a clinician and patient is reinitiated after a relationship has ended, is often in search of or in response to updated interpretation or results. Currently, recontact is happening in a patient-driven and ad hoc manner, undermining its potential to benefit all patients. In this paper, the authors position justice as an additional argument in favor of systematic recontact and an argument against the predominantly patient-initiated model. They argue that patients from equity-deserving groups should be early beneficiaries of an emerging responsibility to recontact patients. The authors share illustrative clinical vignettes and propose role-specific and systems-level solutions to rightfully position recontact as a tool to promote a more equitable clinical genomics future.</p>","PeriodicalId":55073,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Center Report","volume":"54 S2","pages":"S22-S30"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hast.4926","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Center Report","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.4926","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The practice of recontact in genomic medicine has the power to help rectify long-standing inequities in genetic testing. However, if not delivered systematically, recontacting practices also have the potential to reinforce these same inequities. Recontact, which occurs when contact between a clinician and patient is reinitiated after a relationship has ended, is often in search of or in response to updated interpretation or results. Currently, recontact is happening in a patient-driven and ad hoc manner, undermining its potential to benefit all patients. In this paper, the authors position justice as an additional argument in favor of systematic recontact and an argument against the predominantly patient-initiated model. They argue that patients from equity-deserving groups should be early beneficiaries of an emerging responsibility to recontact patients. The authors share illustrative clinical vignettes and propose role-specific and systems-level solutions to rightfully position recontact as a tool to promote a more equitable clinical genomics future.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
矫正还是强化?基因组医学中重新接触实践的(In)公平含义
基因组医学中重新接触的做法有助于纠正基因检测中长期存在的不公平现象。然而,如果没有系统地实施,重新接触的做法也有可能加剧这些不公平现象。再接触是指在一段关系结束后,临床医生和病人重新开始接触,通常是为了寻求或回应最新的解释或结果。目前,再接触正在以患者驱动和特别的方式发生,破坏了其造福所有患者的潜力。在本文中,作者将正义定位为支持系统再接触的额外论据和反对主要由患者发起的模型的论据。他们认为,来自权益群体的患者应该成为重新接触患者的新责任的早期受益者。作者分享了说述性的临床实例,并提出了角色特异性和系统级的解决方案,以正确地将再接触定位为促进更公平的临床基因组学未来的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Hastings Center Report
Hastings Center Report 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hastings Center Report explores ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine, health care, public health, and the life sciences. Six issues per year offer articles, essays, case studies of bioethical problems, columns on law and policy, caregivers’ stories, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and book reviews. Authors come from an assortment of professions and academic disciplines and express a range of perspectives and political opinions. The Report’s readership includes physicians, nurses, scholars, administrators, social workers, health lawyers, and others.
期刊最新文献
Arguments and Analogies: Do Children Have a Right to Know Their Genetic Origins? In Defense of Post Hoc Explanations in Medical AI Benefits and Risks of Using AI Agents in Research What Does Moral Agency Mean for Nurses in the Era of Artificial Intelligence? Implications for All Animal Research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1