On the Justifiability of ACMG Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 43 (1):134-142 (2015)

This paper examines three possible justifications for original ACMG recommendations to return incidental findings from whole exome or genome sequencing independent of patient preferences. The first two potential justifications, based on a patient's authentic values, then on harms to others, are founding lacking as a basis of justification for these recommendations. The third, grounded in analogous professional practices, might serve as a potential justification if several controversies can be avoided. However, given the nature of these controversies and the need to instill public trust in this newly emerging science, the paper finds that updated ACMG recommendations that recognize opt-out rights on behalf of patients is the most prudent, and justifiable, approach
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/jlme.12201
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: 40,625
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Taking Rights Seriously.R. Dworkin - 1977 - Philosophical Quarterly 27 (109):379-380.
Harm to Others.Joel Feinberg - 1987 - Philosophical Review 96 (2):295-298.
On Liberty.JOHN STUART MILL - 1956 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. Oxford University Press. pp. 519-522.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
19 ( #429,353 of 2,242,359 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #128,771 of 2,242,359 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature