Incidental findings of uncertain significance: To know or not to know - that is not the question

BMC Medical Ethics 17 (1):1-9 (2016)

Abstract
BackgroundAlthough the “right not to know” is well established in international regulations, it has been heavily debated. Ubiquitous results from extended exome and genome analysis have challenged the right not to know. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Recommendations urge to inform about incidental findings that pretend to be accurate and actionable. However, ample clinical cases raise the question whether these criteria are met. Many incidental findings are of uncertain significance. The eager to feedback information appears to enter the field of IFUS and thereby threaten the right not to know. This makes it imperative to investigate the arguments for and against a right not to know for IFUS.DiscussionThis article investigates how the various arguments for and against a right not to know hold for IFUS. The main investigated arguments are: hypothetical utilitarianism, the right-based argument, the feasibility argument, the value of knowledge argument, the argument from lost significance, the empirical argument, the duty to disclose argument, the avoiding harm argument; the argument from principle, from autonomy, from privacy, as well as the argument from the right to an open future. The analysis shows that both sides in the debate have exaggerated the importance of incidental findings.SummaryOpponents of a right not to know have exaggerated the importance of IFUS, while proponents have exaggerated the need to be protected from something that is not knowledge. Hence, to know or not to know is not the question. The question is whether we should be able to stay ignorant of incidental findings of uncertain significance, if we want to. The answer is yes: As long as the information is not accurate and/or actionable: ignorance is bliss. When answering questions that are not asked, we need to think twice.
Keywords Incidental findings  Genetic testing  Genome  Exome  Uncertainty
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1186/s12910-016-0096-2
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 46,483
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Right Not to Know: An Autonomy Based Approach.R. Andorno - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (5):435-439.

View all 34 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Collateral Finding of What?Bjørn Hofmann - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (1):26-28.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Incidental Findings in Genetics Research Using Archived DNA.Ellen Wright Clayton - 2008 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (2):286-291.
Genomic Research and Incidental Findings.Brian Van Ness - 2008 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (2):292-297.
Empirical Analysis of Current Approaches to Incidental Findings.Frances Lawrenz & Suzanne Sobotka - 2008 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (2):249-255.
Understanding Incidental Findings in the Context of Genetics and Genomics.Mildred K. Cho - 2008 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (2):280-285.
Incidental Findings in Pediatric Research.Benjamin S. Wilfond & Katherine J. Carpenter - 2008 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (2):332-340.
Aristotle on the Intelligibility of Perception.Eve Rabinoff - 2015 - Review of Metaphysics 68 (4):719-740.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-02-13

Total views
12 ( #693,794 of 2,286,547 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #421,856 of 2,286,547 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature