Ajob Empirical Bioethics 11 (1):63-76 (2020)

Authors
Ainsley Newson
University of Sydney
Abstract
Background: Personal genomic testing (PGT) offers individuals genetic information about relationships, wellness, sporting ability, and health. PGT is increasingly accessible online, including in emerging markets such as Australia. Little is known about what consumers expect from these tests and whether their reflections on testing resonate with bioethics concepts such as autonomy. Methods: We report findings from focus groups and semi-structured interviews that explored attitudes to and experiences of PGT. Focus group participants had little experience with PGT, while interview participants had undergone testing. Recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings were critically interpreted with reference to bioethics scholarship on autonomy. Results: Fifty-six members of the public participated in seven focus groups, and 40 individuals were interviewed separately. Both groups valued the choice of PGT, and believed that it could motivate relevant actions. Focus group themes centered on the perceived value of choices, knowledge enabling action and knowledge about the self. Interview themes suggest that participants reflexively engage with their PGT information to make meaning, and that some appreciate its shortcomings. Critical interpretation of findings shows that while consumers of PGT are able to exercise a degree of autonomy in choosing, they may not be able to achieve a substantive conceptualization of autonomy, one that promotes alignment with higher-order desires. Conclusions: PGT consumers can critically reason about testing. However, they may uncritically accept test results, may not appreciate drawbacks of increased choice, or may overestimate the potential for information to motivate behavioral change. While consumers appear to be capable of substantive autonomy, they do so without ongoing support from companies. PGT companies promote a problematic (“default”) account of autonomy, reliant on empowerment rhetoric. This leaves consumers vulnerable to making decisions inconsistent with their higher-order desires. As PGT expands, claims about its power and value need to be carefully drawn.
Keywords personal genomics  autonomy  genetic testing  qualitative research  bioethics
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/23294515.2019.1701583
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 53,682
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Morality of Freedom.Joseph Raz - 1986 - Philosophy 63 (243):119-122.
Reconceptualizing Autonomy for Bioethics.Lisa Dive & Ainsley J. Newson - 2018 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 28 (2):171-203.
Direct-to-Consumer Genomics on the Scales of Autonomy.Effy Vayena - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (4):310-314.

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Relative Importance of Undesirable Truths.Lisa Bortolotti - 2012 - Medicine Healthcare and Philosophy (4):683-690.
Autonomy and Freedom of Choice in Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis.Elisabeth Hildt - 2002 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 5 (1):65-72.
The Heteronomy of Choice Architecture.Chris Mills - 2015 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (3):495-509.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-12-31

Total views
10 ( #815,463 of 2,349,382 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #186,919 of 2,349,382 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes