» Articles » PMID: 27302841

Legal Approaches Regarding Health-care Decisions Involving Minors: Implications for Next-generation Sequencing

Overview
Journal Eur J Hum Genet
Specialty Genetics
Date 2016 Jun 16
PMID 27302841
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The development of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are revolutionizing medical practice, facilitating more accurate, sophisticated and cost-effective genetic testing. NGS is already being implemented in the clinic assisting diagnosis and management of disorders with a strong heritable component. Although considerable attention has been paid to issues regarding return of incidental or secondary findings, matters of consent are less well explored. This is particularly important for the use of NGS in minors. Recent guidelines addressing genomic testing and screening of children and adolescents have suggested that as 'young children' lack decision-making capacity, decisions about testing must be conducted by a surrogate, namely their parents. This prompts consideration of the age at which minors can provide lawful consent to health-care interventions, and consequently NGS performed for diagnostic purposes. Here, we describe the existing legal approaches regarding the rights of minors to consent to health-care interventions, including how laws in the 28 Member States of the European Union and in Canada consider competent minors, and then apply this to the context of NGS. There is considerable variation in the rights afforded to minors across countries. Many legal systems determine that minors would be allowed, or may even be required, to make decisions about interventions such as NGS. However, minors are often considered as one single homogeneous population who always require parental consent, rather than recognizing there are different categories of 'minors' and that capacity to consent or to be involved in discussions and decision-making process is a spectrum rather than a hurdle.

Citing Articles

Road to FAIR genomes: a gap analysis of NGS data generation and sharing in the Netherlands.

Belien J, Kip A, Swertz M BMJ Open Sci. 2022; 6(1):e100268.

PMID: 35505836 PMC: 9014103. DOI: 10.1136/bmjos-2021-100268.


Reconsenting paediatric research participants for use of identifying data.

Murdoch B, Jandura A, Caulfield T J Med Ethics. 2022; 49(2):106-109.

PMID: 35046134 PMC: 9887363. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107958.


Attitudes of stakeholders in psychiatry towards the inclusion of children in genomic research.

Sundby A, Boolsen M, Burgdorf K, Ullum H, Hansen T, Mors O Hum Genomics. 2018; 12(1):12.

PMID: 29506557 PMC: 5839067. DOI: 10.1186/s40246-018-0144-8.


England uses a competency-based approach to consent for health interventions.

Harling C Eur J Hum Genet. 2017; 25(9):1029.

PMID: 28561020 PMC: 5558174. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2017.53.


The Dutch legal approach regarding health care decisions involving minors in the NGS days.

Kranendonk E, Hennekam R, Ploem M Eur J Hum Genet. 2016; 25(2):166.

PMID: 27876819 PMC: 5255957. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2016.159.


References
1.
Dodge J, Chigladze T, Donadieu J, Grossman Z, Ramos F, Serlicorni A . The importance of rare diseases: from the gene to society. Arch Dis Child. 2010; 96(9):791-2. DOI: 10.1136/adc.2010.193664. View

2.
Green R, Berg J, Grody W, Kalia S, Korf B, Martin C . ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013; 15(7):565-74. PMC: 3727274. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.73. View

3.
Botkin J, Belmont J, Berg J, Berkman B, Bombard Y, Holm I . Points to Consider: Ethical, Legal, and Psychosocial Implications of Genetic Testing in Children and Adolescents. Am J Hum Genet. 2015; 97(1):6-21. PMC: 4570999. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2015.05.022. View

4.
Johnston J, Rubinstein W, Facio F, Ng D, Singh L, Teer J . Secondary variants in individuals undergoing exome sequencing: screening of 572 individuals identifies high-penetrance mutations in cancer-susceptibility genes. Am J Hum Genet. 2012; 91(1):97-108. PMC: 3397257. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.05.021. View

5.
Borry P, Goffin T, Nys H, Dierickx K . Attitudes regarding carrier testing in incompetent children: a survey of European clinical geneticists. Eur J Hum Genet. 2007; 15(12):1211-7. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201909. View