Patient rights, risk, and responsibilities in the genetic era – a right to know, a right not to know, or a duty to know?

Journal Title: Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine - Year 2015, Vol 22, Issue 1

Abstract

[b]Introduction and objective[/b]. As genetics tests ordered by physicians have implications not only for patients but also their relatives, they create a bioethical dilemma for both clinicians and patients. Especially when a patient is reluctant to undergo the test, know the genetic risk, and share such information with others. While international biomedical law recognises the right not to know one’s genetic status, it has been criticised for many reasons. This paper outlines the arguments for and against the right not to know about genetic risk. [b]Abbreviated description of the state of knowledge[/b]. Both medicine and bioethics acknowledge that information about genetic risk affects not only the individual but also other family members. Consequently, many argue that such information is not a private matter and should be regarded not as a right but as an obligation, or even a duty. Thus, it is emphasized that one’s right not to know is strictly related to the duty to inform others about any genetic risk. Yet others believe that constant proliferation of genetic testing and moralization of health issues poses a serious threat to patient rights and creates new opportunities for social surveillance and control. In both cases there can be observed an increasing ‘bioethecization’ of genetic discourse. [b]Summary.[/b] The paper suggests that the developments in genetics result in the emergence of new molecular ethics which stress that individuals have a moral and political duty to undergo the test, know the risk, and disclose that information to others. Consequently, it may transform the right to know into a duty and poses the question whether in the genetic context individuals should have the right to remain ignorant. Finally, the paper argues that genetic literacy becomes a source of biological citizenship.

Authors and Affiliations

Jan Domaradzki

Keywords

Related Articles

Increasing role of arthropod bites in tularaemia transmission in Poland – case reports and diagnostic methods

The study describes four cases of tularaemia – one developed after contact with rabbits and three developed after an arthropod bite. Due to non-specific clinical symptoms, accurate diagnosis of tularaemia may be difficul...

Coupling forces resulting from the type of chain saw used

Introduction. Woodcutters’ working conditions are difficult due to the presence of numerous occupational hazards. Petrol –fuelled chain saws commonly used in forestry produce vibration, which may lead to the development...

Evaluating eco-friendly botanicals (natural plant extracts) as alternatives to synthetic fungicides

Introduction. Fungicides are widely used in conventional agriculture to control plant diseases. Prolonged usage often poses health problems as modern society is becoming more health-conscious.[i] Penicillium digitatum[/i...

Airborne spores of Basidiomycetes in Mérida (SW Spain)

The aim of this work was to detect the presence of Basidiomycetes spores (basidiospores, teliospores, uredospores and aeciospores) in Mérida (SW Spain) and assess the influence of weather parameters. Air was sampled cont...

Tick bites on humans in the agricultural and recreational areas in south-eastern Poland.

The investigations were conducted in the Lublin province (south-eastern Poland) in areas of high agricultural and recreational value. Among the 418 patients admitted to medical clinics due to arthropod bites in the years...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP80933
  • DOI -
  • Views 100
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Jan Domaradzki (2015). Patient rights, risk, and responsibilities in the genetic era – a right to know, a right not to know, or a duty to know?. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, 22(1), 156-162. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-80933