直接面向消费者的健康和祖先基因检测过程中的认知和伦理考虑

Katherine Huerne
{"title":"直接面向消费者的健康和祖先基因检测过程中的认知和伦理考虑","authors":"Katherine Huerne","doi":"10.26443/mjm.v20i1.853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) is a popular and fast-growing field within the healthcare industry. Consumers often pursue DTC-GT without a clear understanding of its epistemic and medical limitations. This report will present the current state of DTC-GT technology, and highlight the ethical, legal and social issues of DTC-GT.\nMethods: Quantitative methods such as systematic reviews were used to evaluate the field of DTC-GT. Experimental data was taken from randomized control trials and case studies of 23andMe. Qualitative methods such as newspaper articles and surveys were also used. Relevant policies and regulatory information were analyzed in the context of 23andMe. Broader ethical issues are analyzed from the social disability model and feminist ethics frameworks.\nResults: Several aspects of direct-to-consumer genetic testing are outlined: (i) regulatory and legal distinctions of DTC-GT that separate its use from conventional genetic testing, (ii) epistemic issues of the genetic testing process within the direct-to-consumer context, and (iii) ethical considerations of DTC-GT in regard to genetic health and genetic ancestry.\nConclusion: This report does not take a position for or against the use of DTC-GT; rather, it highlights the key ethical issues often missed in the DTC-GT process. There is no perfect method for understanding genetic health and race. DTC-GT offer consumers the ease and power of taking genetic data ‘in their own hands’, at the cost of exacerbating geneticization and race essentialism. Until further work is done to address the epistemic, regulatory and legal issues, ethical implications of DTC-GT usage will continue to exist.","PeriodicalId":18292,"journal":{"name":"McGill Journal of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epistemic and ethical considerations in the direct-to-consumer health and ancestry genetic testing process\",\"authors\":\"Katherine Huerne\",\"doi\":\"10.26443/mjm.v20i1.853\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) is a popular and fast-growing field within the healthcare industry. Consumers often pursue DTC-GT without a clear understanding of its epistemic and medical limitations. This report will present the current state of DTC-GT technology, and highlight the ethical, legal and social issues of DTC-GT.\\nMethods: Quantitative methods such as systematic reviews were used to evaluate the field of DTC-GT. Experimental data was taken from randomized control trials and case studies of 23andMe. Qualitative methods such as newspaper articles and surveys were also used. Relevant policies and regulatory information were analyzed in the context of 23andMe. Broader ethical issues are analyzed from the social disability model and feminist ethics frameworks.\\nResults: Several aspects of direct-to-consumer genetic testing are outlined: (i) regulatory and legal distinctions of DTC-GT that separate its use from conventional genetic testing, (ii) epistemic issues of the genetic testing process within the direct-to-consumer context, and (iii) ethical considerations of DTC-GT in regard to genetic health and genetic ancestry.\\nConclusion: This report does not take a position for or against the use of DTC-GT; rather, it highlights the key ethical issues often missed in the DTC-GT process. There is no perfect method for understanding genetic health and race. DTC-GT offer consumers the ease and power of taking genetic data ‘in their own hands’, at the cost of exacerbating geneticization and race essentialism. Until further work is done to address the epistemic, regulatory and legal issues, ethical implications of DTC-GT usage will continue to exist.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18292,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"McGill Journal of Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"McGill Journal of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26443/mjm.v20i1.853\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"McGill Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26443/mjm.v20i1.853","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:直接面向消费者的基因检测(DTC-GT)是医疗保健行业中一个受欢迎且快速发展的领域。消费者往往在不清楚其认知和医学局限性的情况下追求DTC-GT。本报告将介绍DTC-GT技术的现状,并强调DTC-GT的伦理、法律和社会问题。方法:使用系统评价等定量方法来评估DTC-GT领域。实验数据取自23andMe的随机对照试验和案例研究。还使用了诸如报纸文章和调查等定性方法。在23andMe的背景下分析了相关政策和监管信息。从社会残疾模式和女性主义伦理框架分析了更广泛的伦理问题。结果:概述了直接面向消费者的基因检测的几个方面:(i)DTC-GT的监管和法律区别,将其使用与传统基因检测区分开来,(ii)直接面向消费者背景下的基因检测过程的认识问题,以及(iii)DTC-GT在基因健康和遗传祖先方面的伦理考虑。结论:本报告不支持或反对使用DTC-GT;相反,它强调了DTC-GT过程中经常遗漏的关键道德问题。没有完美的方法来理解基因健康和种族。DTC-GT为消费者提供了将基因数据“掌握在自己手中”的便利和力量,但代价是加剧了基因化和种族本质主义。在进一步解决认识、监管和法律问题之前,DTC-GT使用的伦理影响将继续存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Epistemic and ethical considerations in the direct-to-consumer health and ancestry genetic testing process
Background: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) is a popular and fast-growing field within the healthcare industry. Consumers often pursue DTC-GT without a clear understanding of its epistemic and medical limitations. This report will present the current state of DTC-GT technology, and highlight the ethical, legal and social issues of DTC-GT. Methods: Quantitative methods such as systematic reviews were used to evaluate the field of DTC-GT. Experimental data was taken from randomized control trials and case studies of 23andMe. Qualitative methods such as newspaper articles and surveys were also used. Relevant policies and regulatory information were analyzed in the context of 23andMe. Broader ethical issues are analyzed from the social disability model and feminist ethics frameworks. Results: Several aspects of direct-to-consumer genetic testing are outlined: (i) regulatory and legal distinctions of DTC-GT that separate its use from conventional genetic testing, (ii) epistemic issues of the genetic testing process within the direct-to-consumer context, and (iii) ethical considerations of DTC-GT in regard to genetic health and genetic ancestry. Conclusion: This report does not take a position for or against the use of DTC-GT; rather, it highlights the key ethical issues often missed in the DTC-GT process. There is no perfect method for understanding genetic health and race. DTC-GT offer consumers the ease and power of taking genetic data ‘in their own hands’, at the cost of exacerbating geneticization and race essentialism. Until further work is done to address the epistemic, regulatory and legal issues, ethical implications of DTC-GT usage will continue to exist.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Healthy Brains Healthy Lives 2024 Symposium Ontario Student Medical Education Research Conference (OSMERC) 2024 Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a call for change in reporting practices Advance Care Directives: A Herzl Clinic Quality Improvement Project on Patients' perspectives Children’s health-related experiences in India: A scoping review
×
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