» Articles » PMID: 30781705

Autonomy Challenges in Epigenetic Risk-Stratified Cancer Screening: How Can Patient Decision Aids Support Informed Consent?

Overview
Journal J Pers Med
Date 2019 Feb 21
PMID 30781705
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Information of an individual's epigenome can be useful in cancer screening to enable personalised decision making on participation, treatment options and further screening strategies. However, adding this information might result in complex risk predictions on multiple diseases, unsolicited findings and information on (past) environmental exposure and behaviour. This complicates informed consent procedures and may impede autonomous decision-making. In this article we investigate and identify the specific features of epigenetic risk-stratified cancer screening that challenge the current informed consent doctrine. Subsequently we describe current and new informed consent models and the principle of respect for autonomy and argue for a specific informed consent model for epigenetic risk-stratified screening programmes. Next, we propose a framework that guides the development of Patient Decision Aids (PDAs) to support informed consent and promote autonomous choices in the specific context of epigenetic cancer screening programmes.

Citing Articles

A contextual integrity approach to genomic information: what bioethics can learn from big data ethics.

de Groot N Med Health Care Philos. 2024; 27(3):367-379.

PMID: 38865053 PMC: 11310229. DOI: 10.1007/s11019-024-10211-0.


Towards a Design Toolkit of Informed Consent Models Across Fields: A Systematic Review.

Loosman I, Nickel P Sci Eng Ethics. 2022; 28(5):42.

PMID: 36042065 PMC: 9427926. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-022-00398-x.


Ethical implications of epigenetics in the era of personalized medicine.

Santalo J, Berdasco M Clin Epigenetics. 2022; 14(1):44.

PMID: 35337378 PMC: 8953972. DOI: 10.1186/s13148-022-01263-1.


Exploring the Ethics of Implementation of Epigenomics Technologies in Cancer Screening: A Focus Group Study.

Bunnik E, Bolt I Epigenet Insights. 2021; 14:25168657211063618.

PMID: 34917888 PMC: 8669112. DOI: 10.1177/25168657211063618.


Conducting epigenetics research with refugees and asylum seekers: attending to the ethical challenges.

Taki F, de Melo-Martin I Clin Epigenetics. 2021; 13(1):105.

PMID: 33964970 PMC: 8106224. DOI: 10.1186/s13148-021-01092-8.


References
1.
Goel V . Appraising organised screening programmes for testing for genetic susceptibility to cancer. BMJ. 2001; 322(7295):1174-8. PMC: 1120291. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.322.7295.1174. View

2.
Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, Bond J, Burt R, Ferrucci J . Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology. 2003; 124(2):544-60. DOI: 10.1053/gast.2003.50044. View

3.
Goldie S, Kim J, Wright T . Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in women aged 30 years or more. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103(4):619-31. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000120143.50098.c7. View

4.
Kegley J . Challenges to informed consent. EMBO Rep. 2004; 5(9):832-6. PMC: 1299146. DOI: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400246. View

5.
Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T, OBrien M . Treatment decision aids: conceptual issues and future directions. Health Expect. 2005; 8(2):114-25. PMC: 5060284. DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2005.00325.x. View