Hastings Center Report最新文献

The integration of genomics into public health and medicine is happening at a faster rate than the accrual of the capabilities necessary to ensure the equitable, global distribution of its clinical benefits. Uneven access to genetic testing and follow-up care, unequal distribution of the resources required to access and participate in research, and underrepresentation of some descent groups in genetic and clinical datasets (and thus uncertain genetic results for some patients) are just some of the reasons to center justice in genomics. A more just genomics is an imperative rooted in the ethical obligations incurred by a publicly funded science that is reliant on human data. These features of genomics indebt the genomics enterprise and compel the expanded scope of responsibility proposed by the authors of this special report. The report begins to define justice in genomics for different stakeholder groups and proposes substantial shifts in power, resource distribution, scientific practice, and governance that could enable genomics to meet its obligations to humanity.

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.

The promise of genomic medicine lies in the opportunity to improve health outcomes via a personalized approach to management, grounded in genetic and genomic variation unique to an individual. However, disparities and inequities mar this remarkable landscape of genomic innovation. Prior efforts to understand these inequities have focused on populations for which genetic testing is relatively protocolized or where test utility varies greatly by ancestry groups, where equitable outcomes are more clearly defined. We therefore consider the current landscape of rare disease genomics, in which diagnostic approaches vary widely and utility remains to be fully understood, and suggest a path forward: how ecosocial theory may be used to guide novel equity-focused initiatives that incorporate illness narratives to improve population health. We present examples of narrative medicine in rare disease and reimagine the role this discipline may play in genomic sequencing studies, toward incorporation of the unique illness narrative into clinical genetics and genomics practice. Approaches that broaden the definitions of disease and of outcomes of interest will force the field to grapple with its racist history and begin to advance health equity and promote justice so that genomic medicine may truly deliver on its promise.

The rapid advances in genomics over the last decade have come to fruition amid intense public discussions of justice in medicine and health care. While much emphasis has been placed on increasing diversity in genomics research participation, an overly narrow focus on recruitment eschews recognition of the disparities in health care that will ultimately shape access to the benefits of genomic medicine. In this essay, we suggest that achieving a just genomics, both now and in the future, requires an explicit ELSI of translation—normative and pragmatic scholarship that embraces the interconnectedness of research and clinical care and centers the obligations of researchers, institutions, and funders to mitigate inequities throughout the translational pipeline. We propose core principles to guide an ELSI of translation and to ensure that this work balances the value of the generalizable knowledge that genomics research generates and the value of the individuals and communities who make this research possible.

Governance of biomedical research in the United States has been characterized by ethical individualism, a mode of reasoning that treats the individual person as the center of moral concern and analysis. However, genomics research raises ethics issues that uniquely affect certain genetically related communities as collectives, not merely as aggregates of individuals. This is especially true of identifiable populations—including Indigenous Peoples—that are often minoritized, socially marginalized, or geographically isolated. We propose an alternative, complementary framework based on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (2007), which explicitly recognizes both individual and collective rights. We use the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance as a case study to show how this UNDRIP-based framework can complement the individual-focused national standard for research oversight represented by the Belmont principles, thereby better protecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights and interests in genomic data.

While somatic cell editing to treat disease is widely accepted, the use of human genome editing for “enhancement” remains contested. Scientists and policy-makers routinely cite the prospect of enhancement as a salient ethical challenge for human genome editing research. If preventive genome editing projects are perceived as pursuing human enhancement, they could face heightened barriers to scientific, public, and regulatory approval. This article outlines what we call “preventive strengthening research” (or “PSR”) to explore, through this example, how working to strengthen individuals’ resistance to disease beyond what biomedicine considers to be the human functional range may be interpreted as pursuing human enhancement. Those involved in developing guidance for PSR will need to navigate the interface between preventive goals and enhancement implications. This article identifies and critiques three of these ideas in the interest of anticipating the wider emergence of PSR and the need for a normative approach for its pursuit. All three “candidate criteria” merit attention, but each also faces challenges that will need to be addressed as further research policy is developed.

In light of the proposed expansion of eligibility for physician aid in dying (PAD) in Canada to people with psychiatric disorders, there is a new subset of individuals seeking PAD—those with poverty-induced depression. The dominant account defending the expansion is known as the “parity argument.” Defenders of the parity argument maintain that the expansion of PAD to those with psychiatric conditions is needed to reflect that the seriousness of a patient's suffering does not depend on the cause of that suffering. Parity accounts, as they stand, would allow cases of poverty-induced depression to qualify. I raise a moral dilemma that the parity theorist must face considering this new subset of cases—expanding access to PAD, without adequate social protections, could produce more social inequality by aiming to reduce it. I propose six recommendations that policy-makers should consider before expanding PAD given these cases, social injustice, and the social determinants of mental health.