Immortal data: a qualitative exploration of patients' understandings of genomic data.

Kate Lyle, Susie Weller, Rachel Horton, Anneke Lucassen
Author Information
  1. Kate Lyle: Clinical Ethics, Law and Society (CELS), Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. kate.lyle@well.ox.ac.uk. ORCID
  2. Susie Weller: Clinical Ethics, Law and Society (CELS), Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  3. Rachel Horton: Clinical Ethics, Law and Society (CELS), Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  4. Anneke Lucassen: Clinical Ethics, Law and Society (CELS), Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. ORCID

Abstract

As ambitions to 'mainstream' genetic and genomic medicine in the UK advance, patients are increasingly exposed to information about genomic data. Unlike the results of many other medical investigations which are linked to the time of sample collection, genomic testing provides immortal data that do not change across time, and may have relevance for relatives and generations far beyond the patient's own lifespan. This immortality raises new ethical challenges for healthcare professionals, patients and families alike, such as ensuring consent for possible future interpretations; determining when genomic data are best sought (at birth, on illness etc) and reinterpreted; and balancing the confidentiality of patients and duties of care towards others. This paper reports on qualitative work exploring the perspectives of patients and relatives participating in genomic testing, and suggests that their engagements with this immortality are shaped by: the contrast between the simplicity of sample provision and information gathered; understandings of heritability; and notions of genomic data as a collective resource. We discuss the implications this holds for practice and argue that the immortality of genomic data must take a more prominent position in patient and healthcare professional interactions.

References

  1. Genet Med. 2012 Apr;14(4):361-84 [PMID: 22436882]
  2. Eur J Hum Genet. 2021 Apr;29(4):649-656 [PMID: 33249421]
  3. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020 Jun;28(6):732-741 [PMID: 31919452]
  4. Curr Genet Med Rep. 2019;7(2):85-91 [PMID: 31281738]
  5. Nat Rev Genet. 2020 Jun;21(6):377-384 [PMID: 32251390]
  6. J Law Med Ethics. 2015 Winter;43(4):690-702 [PMID: 26711410]
  7. Am J Bioeth. 2019 Jan;19(1):51-63 [PMID: 30676903]
  8. Soc Sci Med. 2022 Mar;297:114806 [PMID: 35219975]
  9. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020 Jul;28(7):915-924 [PMID: 32086443]
  10. J Med Ethics. 2019 Aug;45(8):504-507 [PMID: 31123189]
  11. BMJ. 2021 Oct 14;375:n2376 [PMID: 34649841]
  12. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2019 Jan-Mar;10(1):1-22 [PMID: 30596322]
  13. BMC Med Genomics. 2019 Nov 29;12(1):170 [PMID: 31779608]
  14. BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Aug 8;18(1):47 [PMID: 28789658]
  15. Sci Technol Human Values. 2017 Jan;42(1):3-28 [PMID: 28018016]

Grants

  1. 208053/Z/17/Z/Wellcome Trust (Wellcome)
  2. 218092/Z/19/Z/Wellcome Trust (Wellcome)

MeSH Term

Infant, Newborn
Humans
Patients
Genome
Confidentiality
Genomics

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0genomicdatapatientsimmortalityinformationtimesampletestingrelativeshealthcarequalitativeunderstandingsambitions'mainstream'geneticmedicineUKadvanceincreasinglyexposedUnlikeresultsmanymedicalinvestigationslinkedcollectionprovidesimmortalchangeacrossmayrelevancegenerationsfarbeyondpatient'slifespanraisesnewethicalchallengesprofessionalsfamiliesalikeensuringconsentpossiblefutureinterpretationsdeterminingbestsoughtbirthillnessetcreinterpretedbalancingconfidentialitydutiescaretowardsotherspaperreportsworkexploringperspectivesparticipatingsuggestsengagementsshapedby:contrastsimplicityprovisiongatheredheritabilitynotionscollectiveresourcediscussimplicationsholdspracticearguemusttakeprominentpositionpatientprofessionalinteractionsImmortaldata:explorationpatients'

Similar Articles

Cited By