New guidelines for patients who opt-out of DNA screens too limiting

d c b z
Credit: Flickr/MKnetsch

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) sets the national benchmarks for ethical use of genetic information in healthcare. In their newest guidelines, released April 1, they recommend patients be allowed to opt-out of having their genome screened for 24 genetic risk factors for specific medical conditions.

The 24 conditions were picked because the college determined the information was actionable: if you test positive for one of these mutations, there are treatments or lifestyle changes that can cure of prevent the disease.

Originally, the college thought all patients who get their genomes screened, presumably for a cancer diagnosis or other condition, should be told their risk status for these 24 if they wanted to or not.

The ACMG decided to change their position for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is the incidental finding of a risk. Dina Fine Maron at Scientific American explains:

Sequencing has vast power to uncover a wide range of underlying genetic mutations, but in many cases we are still not sure exactly what these mutations mean… Sometimes those genetic clues provide an early warning that will save a life, but they can also be wrong, leading to unnecessary stress and risky treatments.

But some geneticists within the community disagree because patients who opt-out of this testing will be deprived of information that could possibly save their lives. As Harvard Medical School professor Robert Greene told Maron:

“I worry that allowing this opt out will disproportionately impact the disenfranchised. It will become too easy for a lazy doctor just to say ‘ok, we’ll skip [this important testing]… Frightened patients, those less well-educated patients or perhaps those distracted by a child’s disease will be the ones that opt out.”

But shouldn’t patients have more choice than all or nothing? What about a selection of variants? If tests for these 24 conditions are truly as important as the college thinks, and patient consent is equally so, surely a ‘menu’ option is the next step. Could the problem be increasing provider workload? GenomeWeb explains the current set up:

Within this framework, the onus will fall on the clinician who requested clinical sequencing to explain the opt-out option and its potential drawbacks or benefits while obtaining informed consent for clinical sequencing.

It remains totally unclear if insurance companies would pay for the additional counseling. And, when the list of recommended gene variants grows, as the ACMG expects it to, that side of patient education will only become more burdensome to providers’ resources.

At any rate, it seems rather plausible that a patient might want to know her status for colon or thyroid cancer risk, but not for neurodegernerative diseases. Let’s hope the next round of ACMG recommendations go further.

Additional Resources:

Outbreak
Outbreak Daily Digest
Biotech Facts & Fallacies
Talking Biotech
Genetics Unzipped
ft covidresponseus feature

Video: Viewpoint: The US wrote the global playbook on the coronavirus and then ignored it

A year ago, the United States was regarded as the country best prepared for a pandemic. Our government had spent ...
mag insects image superjumbo v

Disaster interrupted: Which farming system better preserves insect populations: Organic or conventional?

A three-year run of fragmentary Armageddon-like studies had primed the journalism pumps and settled the media framing about the future ...
dead bee desolate city

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

The media call it the “Insect Apocalypse”. In the past three years, the phrase has become an accepted truth of ...
globalmethanebudget globalcarbonproject cropped x

Infographic: Cows cause climate change? Agriculture scientist says ‘belching bovines’ get too much blame

A recent interview by Caroline Stocks, a UK journalist who writes about food, agriculture and the environment, of air quality ...
organic hillside sweet corn x

Organic v conventional using GMOs: Which is the more sustainable farming?

Many consumers spend more for organic food to avoid genetically modified products in part because they believe that “industrial agriculture” ...
benjamin franklin x

Are most GMO safety studies funded by industry?

The assertion that biotech companies do the research and the government just signs off on it is false ...
gmo corn field x

Do GMO Bt (insect-resistant) crops pose a threat to human health or the environment?

Bt is a bacterium found organically in the soil. It is extremely effective in repelling or killing target insects but ...
favicon

Environmental Working Group: EWG challenges safety of GMOs, food pesticide residues

Known by some as the "Environmental Worrying Group," EWG lobbies for tighter GMO legislation and famously puts out annual "dirty dozen" list of fruits and ...
m hansen

Michael Hansen: Architect of Consumers Union ongoing anti-GMO campaign

Michael K. Hansen (born 1956) is thought by critics to be the prime mover behind the ongoing campaign against agricultural biotechnology at Consumer Reports. He is an ...
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend