Monash Bioethics Review 39 (Suppl 1):117-129 (2021)

Although rapid genomic sequencing is improving care for critically ill children with rare disease, it also raises important ethical questions that need to be explored as its use becomes more widespread. Two such questions relate to the degree of consent that should be required for RGS to proceed and whether it might ever be appropriate to override parents’ decisions not to allow RGS to be performed in their critically ill child. To explore these questions, we first examine the legal frameworks on securing consent for genomic sequencing and how they apply to the specific context of RGS for critically ill children. We then use a tool from clinical ethics, the Zone of Parental Discretion, to explore two case studies and identify under which circumstances it might be appropriate for parental refusal of RGS to be overridden. We argue that RGS may be a context where, in addition to assessing the complexity of the test offered, it is ethically appropriate to consider an effect on patient outcomes when deciding the degree of consent required. We also suggest that there are some contexts where it may be ethically justified to perform RGS, even when it is actively against the wishes of the parents. More work is needed to examine exactly how ‘time-sensitive’ exceptions to current guidance on consent for genomic sequencing could be formulated and operationalised for RGS for critically ill-children.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s40592-021-00146-0
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: 71,290
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

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Support for Full Disclosure Up Front.Felicitas Holzer & Ignacio Mastroleo - 2015 - Hastings Center Report 45 (1):3-3.


Added to PP index

Total views
1 ( #1,552,396 of 2,518,735 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #408,070 of 2,518,735 )

How can I increase my downloads?


Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes