基因检测结果的回归:谁欠谁什么,什么时候,为什么?

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Hastings Law Journal Pub Date : 2013-01-01 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2227667
Stephanie A. Alessi
{"title":"基因检测结果的回归:谁欠谁什么,什么时候,为什么?","authors":"Stephanie A. Alessi","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2227667","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The field of genetic research has revolutionized modern medicine and will continue to do so in the years to come. For the people whose biological materials form the basis for this research, however, the research process may also lead to personal discoveries — namely, it may expose information about their health, genetic predispositions, and other gene-linked characteristics. Researchers who uncover this kind of personal genetic information are likewise confronted with the question of whether they should — or must — provide their subjects with feedback about their results. For subjects and researchers alike, the answer is unclear. Presently, there is little guidance as to these parties’ rights and responsibilities when it comes to the return of genetic results in a research setting. As a result, neither party has a clearly defined understanding of what to expect from the research relationship. This Article draws on recognized ethical and legal foundations to propose that genetic researchers should owe three limited legal duties to their research subjects regarding planning for, acquiring informed consent about, and reporting certain genetic findings. Considering the wide variation among individuals in terms of what genetic information they would like to know, this Article balances concerns for individual autonomy with the right to acquire personal health information, and it weighs those interests against the potential cost to socially beneficial genetic research. In balancing these considerations, this Article’s proposals for a limited set of duties offer a careful step toward clearly defining the rights and responsibilities of genetic researchers and their subjects.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Return of Results in Genetic Testing: Who Owes What to Whom, When, and Why?\",\"authors\":\"Stephanie A. Alessi\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2227667\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The field of genetic research has revolutionized modern medicine and will continue to do so in the years to come. For the people whose biological materials form the basis for this research, however, the research process may also lead to personal discoveries — namely, it may expose information about their health, genetic predispositions, and other gene-linked characteristics. Researchers who uncover this kind of personal genetic information are likewise confronted with the question of whether they should — or must — provide their subjects with feedback about their results. For subjects and researchers alike, the answer is unclear. Presently, there is little guidance as to these parties’ rights and responsibilities when it comes to the return of genetic results in a research setting. As a result, neither party has a clearly defined understanding of what to expect from the research relationship. This Article draws on recognized ethical and legal foundations to propose that genetic researchers should owe three limited legal duties to their research subjects regarding planning for, acquiring informed consent about, and reporting certain genetic findings. Considering the wide variation among individuals in terms of what genetic information they would like to know, this Article balances concerns for individual autonomy with the right to acquire personal health information, and it weighs those interests against the potential cost to socially beneficial genetic research. In balancing these considerations, this Article’s proposals for a limited set of duties offer a careful step toward clearly defining the rights and responsibilities of genetic researchers and their subjects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hastings Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hastings Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2227667\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2227667","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

基因研究领域已经彻底改变了现代医学,并将在未来几年继续这样做。然而,对于以其生物材料为本研究基础的人来说,研究过程也可能导致个人发现——即,它可能暴露有关其健康、遗传倾向和其他基因相关特征的信息。发现这种个人遗传信息的研究人员同样面临着这样的问题:他们是否应该——或者必须——向他们的研究对象提供关于他们结果的反馈。对于研究对象和研究人员来说,答案都不清楚。目前,当涉及到在研究环境中返回基因结果时,很少有关于这些各方的权利和责任的指导。因此,双方都没有一个明确的理解,期望从研究关系中得到什么。本文借鉴公认的伦理和法律基础,提出基因研究人员应该对他们的研究对象负有三个有限的法律义务,包括计划、获得知情同意和报告某些基因发现。考虑到个人在希望了解何种遗传信息方面的广泛差异,本条平衡了对个人自主权的关切与获取个人健康信息的权利,并将这些利益与对社会有益的基因研究的潜在成本进行了权衡。为了平衡这些考虑,本文提出的一套有限责任的建议为明确界定基因研究人员及其研究对象的权利和责任提供了一个谨慎的步骤。
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
The Return of Results in Genetic Testing: Who Owes What to Whom, When, and Why?
The field of genetic research has revolutionized modern medicine and will continue to do so in the years to come. For the people whose biological materials form the basis for this research, however, the research process may also lead to personal discoveries — namely, it may expose information about their health, genetic predispositions, and other gene-linked characteristics. Researchers who uncover this kind of personal genetic information are likewise confronted with the question of whether they should — or must — provide their subjects with feedback about their results. For subjects and researchers alike, the answer is unclear. Presently, there is little guidance as to these parties’ rights and responsibilities when it comes to the return of genetic results in a research setting. As a result, neither party has a clearly defined understanding of what to expect from the research relationship. This Article draws on recognized ethical and legal foundations to propose that genetic researchers should owe three limited legal duties to their research subjects regarding planning for, acquiring informed consent about, and reporting certain genetic findings. Considering the wide variation among individuals in terms of what genetic information they would like to know, this Article balances concerns for individual autonomy with the right to acquire personal health information, and it weighs those interests against the potential cost to socially beneficial genetic research. In balancing these considerations, this Article’s proposals for a limited set of duties offer a careful step toward clearly defining the rights and responsibilities of genetic researchers and their subjects.
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
0
期刊介绍: Hastings College of the Law was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California, and today is one of the top-rated law schools in the United States. Its alumni span the globe and are among the most respected lawyers, judges and business leaders today. Hastings was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California and is one of the most exciting and vibrant legal education centers in the nation. Our faculty are nationally renowned as both teachers and scholars.
期刊最新文献
Corporations and the Original Meaning of 'Citizens' in Article III Law of the State and Politics Beyond the Double Veto: Housing Plans as Preemptive Intergovernmental Compacts Unmasking the Right of Publicity History, Tradition, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment
×
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