From Beyond the Grave: Use of Medical Information from the Deceased to Guide Care of Living Relatives.

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2020-01-01 Epub Date: 2020-11-24 DOI:10.1007/s40142-020-00196-6
Shereen Tadros, Helena Carley, Anneke Lucassen
{"title":"From Beyond the Grave: Use of Medical Information from the Deceased to Guide Care of Living Relatives.","authors":"Shereen Tadros,&nbsp;Helena Carley,&nbsp;Anneke Lucassen","doi":"10.1007/s40142-020-00196-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>In order to inform patients of their genetic risks, access to the medical records and/or stored samples of their relatives is often helpful. We consider some of the obstacles to such access when these relatives are deceased and suggest how they might be navigated.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>We explore an issue first highlighted in 2004 by Lucassen et al. (Br Med J 328:952-953, 2004) and re-evaluate it in the wake of novel technologies and mainstreaming of genomic medicine. We find that it is still an issue in practice despite professional guidelines advocating access to familial information (Joint Committee on Genomics in Medicine 2019) and that the Human Tissue Act 2004 is often wrongly constructed as a reason to block access. Access is often obstructed by failing to adopt the necessary relational concept of autonomy that applies in genetic medicine as reported by Horton and Lucassen (Curr Genet Med Rep 7:85-91, 2019) and by considering confidentiality to be absolute, even after death. In response to a recent legal case about the confidentiality of genetic test results, and their disclosure to family members (ABC v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust 2020), Dove et al. (J Med Ethics 45:504-507, 2019) suggested that a duty to consider the interests of genetic relatives could co-exist alongside a duty of confidentiality to a patient. In this way, healthcare professionals can use professional judgement about the relative value of genetic information to family members. This is equally relevant in accessing deceased relatives' information. A recent systematic review found a high level of acceptability of postmortem use of genetic data for medical research amongst participants and their relatives, and it is reasonable to assume that this acceptability would extend to clinical practice as reported by Bak et al. (Eur J Hum Genet 28:403-416, 2020).</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Within clinical practice, access to medical records/samples of deceased relatives is often obstructed unnecessarily, potentially resulting in harm to the living relatives seeking advice. Consent to such access is important but need not be the bureaucratic hurdle that is often imposed.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s40142-020-00196-6","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40142-020-00196-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/11/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Purpose of review: In order to inform patients of their genetic risks, access to the medical records and/or stored samples of their relatives is often helpful. We consider some of the obstacles to such access when these relatives are deceased and suggest how they might be navigated.

Recent findings: We explore an issue first highlighted in 2004 by Lucassen et al. (Br Med J 328:952-953, 2004) and re-evaluate it in the wake of novel technologies and mainstreaming of genomic medicine. We find that it is still an issue in practice despite professional guidelines advocating access to familial information (Joint Committee on Genomics in Medicine 2019) and that the Human Tissue Act 2004 is often wrongly constructed as a reason to block access. Access is often obstructed by failing to adopt the necessary relational concept of autonomy that applies in genetic medicine as reported by Horton and Lucassen (Curr Genet Med Rep 7:85-91, 2019) and by considering confidentiality to be absolute, even after death. In response to a recent legal case about the confidentiality of genetic test results, and their disclosure to family members (ABC v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust 2020), Dove et al. (J Med Ethics 45:504-507, 2019) suggested that a duty to consider the interests of genetic relatives could co-exist alongside a duty of confidentiality to a patient. In this way, healthcare professionals can use professional judgement about the relative value of genetic information to family members. This is equally relevant in accessing deceased relatives' information. A recent systematic review found a high level of acceptability of postmortem use of genetic data for medical research amongst participants and their relatives, and it is reasonable to assume that this acceptability would extend to clinical practice as reported by Bak et al. (Eur J Hum Genet 28:403-416, 2020).

Summary: Within clinical practice, access to medical records/samples of deceased relatives is often obstructed unnecessarily, potentially resulting in harm to the living relatives seeking advice. Consent to such access is important but need not be the bureaucratic hurdle that is often imposed.

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
从坟墓之外:使用来自死者的医疗信息来指导照顾活着的亲属。
审查目的:为了使患者了解其遗传风险,查阅其亲属的医疗记录和/或储存的样本通常是有帮助的。我们考虑了这些亲属去世后进入的一些障碍,并建议如何进行导航。最近的发现:我们探讨了Lucassen等人在2004年首次强调的一个问题(Br Med J 328:952-953, 2004),并在新技术和基因组医学主流化之后重新评估它。我们发现,尽管专业指南倡导获取家族信息(2019年医学基因组学联合委员会),但在实践中这仍然是一个问题,而且2004年《人体组织法》经常被错误地构建为阻止获取的理由。根据Horton和Lucassen的报告(Curr Genet Med Rep 7:85-91, 2019),由于未能采用适用于遗传医学的必要的自主关系概念,以及即使在死后也认为保密是绝对的,获取往往受到阻碍。针对最近一起关于基因检测结果保密及其向家庭成员披露的法律案件(ABC诉圣乔治医疗保健NHS信托2020年),Dove等人(J Med Ethics 45:50 04-507, 2019)建议,考虑遗传亲属利益的义务可以与对患者的保密义务共存。通过这种方式,医疗保健专业人员可以对遗传信息对家庭成员的相对价值进行专业判断。这在获取已故亲属信息方面同样重要。最近的一项系统综述发现,参与者及其亲属对死后使用遗传数据进行医学研究具有高度的可接受性,并且可以合理地假设这种可接受性将扩展到Bak等人的临床实践(Eur J Hum Genet 28:43 - 416,2020)。摘要:在临床实践中,获取已故亲属的医疗记录/样本往往受到不必要的阻碍,这可能对寻求建议的在世亲属造成伤害。对此类访问的同意很重要,但不必成为经常强加的官僚障碍。
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
The change process questionnaire (CPQ): A psychometric validation. Differential Costs of Raising Grandchildren on Older Mother-Adult Child Relations in Black and White Families. Does Resilience Mediate the Relationship Between Negative Self-Image and Psychological Distress in Middle-Aged and Older Gay and Bisexual Men? Intergenerational Relations and Well-being Among Older Middle Eastern/Arab American Immigrants During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Caregiving Appraisals and Emotional Valence: Moderating Effects of Activity Participation.
×
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:481959085
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