Genetic risk: the new frontier for the duty to warn

Delinquent Behavior: Systematic Review of Genetic and Environmental Risk Factors

Delinquency refers to a juveniles' behavior pattern characterized by repeated offending, and is regarded mainly in its social, but also criminal aspects. Delinquent and non-delinquent individuals may be a product of the same society or even the same family. Young individuals who are unable to find affection and protection within the family may become more susceptible to delinquency as a form of empowerment. More than socioeconomic conditions, the lack of interaction between parents and children, the existence of psychopathological problems in either parent, and academic problems, together with a biological vulnerability, may be deciding factors for the involvement of young individuals in delinquent behavior. This review aims to analyze the influence of environmental and genetic factors in the development of delinquent behavior. Studies related to the influence of the environment and genes on the development of delinquent behavior were obtained from multiple databases, through rigorous exclusion and inclusion criteria. Of the 152 documents retrieved, 87 were retained for further analysis, and 36 final studies were considered eligible for inclusion. In addition to these, ten studies were added trough manual search, with the final sample thus comprising 46 articles, published between 1983 and 2016. Objectives, methodological aspects (samples and instruments), and main conclusions were extracted from each study. Overall, the interaction between genetic and environmental factors appears to best explain the variation of delinquent behavior. Environmental risk factors may have differential effects on the behavior of individuals, particularly according to their genetic propensity for delinquency.

Guidelines for disclosing genetic information to family members: from development to use

This paper presents the existing legal frameworks, professional guidelines and other documents related to the conditions and extent of the disclosure of genetic information by physicians to at-risk family members. Although the duty of a physician regarding disclosure of genetic information to a patient's relatives has only been addressed by few legal cases, courts have found such a duty under some circumstances. Generally, disclosure should not be permitted without the patient's consent. Yet, due to the nature of genetic information, exceptions are foreseen, where treatment and prevention are available. This duty to warn a patient's relative is also supported by some professional and policy organizations that have addressed the issue. Practice guidelines with a communication and intervention plan are emerging, providing physicians with tools that allow them to assist patients in their communication with relatives without jeopardizing their professional liability. Since guidelines aim to improve the appropriateness of medical practice and consequently to better serve the interests of patients, it is important to determine to what degree they document the 'best practice' standards. Such an analysis is an essential step to evaluate the different approaches permitting the disclosure of genetic information to family members.

Outpatient commitment: the state of empirical research on its outcomes

This article briefly describes the historical conditions in the origin and development of outpatient commitment that framed the discourse on its merits and the empirical studies on its outcomes. It divides those empirical studies into two sets on the basis of the questions addressed and critically reviews them. The review pays particular attention to the latest studies that were able to randomize subjects to experimental and control conditions and that were able to offer enhanced services. Finally, this article presents issues not addressed by the empirical studies on outpatient commitment but that need to be addressed in order to understand the choice of using the law to force persons with mental illness to comply with treatment and receive services in the community.

Genetic knowledge and moral responsibility: ambiguity at the interface of genetic research and clinical practice

Despite a rapidly expanding literature on the issue of duty to warn at-risk relatives in the context of clinical genetic testing, little has been written on parallel issues with regard to the management of genetic research results. Some might view this lack as an indication that there is little to discuss in this regard. That is, standard practice is that data obtained through medical research should not be treated as though they are clinically relevant, and this standard should hold for genetic research as well. This paper challenges this conclusion and its underlying assumptions. We argue that the line between genetic research and clinical practice is often ambiguous. In some cases, research data gathered from a very small number of subjects could have immediate clinical implications. Hence, it is unethical for genetic researchers to absolve themselves of clinical responsibilities for research subjects and/or their families, on the grounds that the data were obtained for research purposes. Indeed, we argue that it could well be unethical to embark on some forms of genetic research unless advance arrangements have been made for genetic counseling and clinical follow-up. Furthermore, in some cases, it might be unethical to enroll subjects in studies if the subjects are unwilling to receive their individual results.

Medical Geneticists' duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease

A patient who refuses to notify their relatives of potential at-risk status brings a genetics provider to face conflicting ethical principles and ill-defined legal precedent. Genetics professionals' views on the disclosure of patient information to at-risk relatives have remained largely unexamined. Prior analyses have been limited to identifying factors contributing to genetics providers' self-predicted responses in hypothetical scenarios. Our group was the first to examine the clinical experience of genetic counselors with this issue [Dugan et al., 2003]. We report here results from our follow-up survey of medical geneticists who are members of either the American Society of Human Genetics and/or American College of Medical Genetics in an effort to identify their experiences in warning at-risk relatives and the factors driving their decision-making processes. Over two-thirds of medical geneticists surveyed (69%, 143/206) believe they do bear responsibility to warn their patients' relatives when found to be at-risk for genetic disease. One-quarter (25%, 31/123) of medical geneticists who faced the dilemma of a patient refusing to notify their at-risk relatives seriously considered disclosure to those at-risk relatives without patient consent. Only four respondents proceeded to warn at-risk relatives of their status. Whereas genetic counselors cited emotional issues as playing a primary role in their decision not to warn, medical geneticists identified patient confidentiality, eventual case resolution by other means, and legal liability as the major factors leading to non-disclosure in 76% of actual scenarios. Responsibilities of medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and non-genetics healthcare professionals facing this issue will need to be more clearly defined to provide optimal medical care within the bounds of acceptable practice.

Duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease: genetic counselors' clinical experience

When a patient refuses to inform relatives of their risk for genetic disease, the genetic healthcare professional is faced with conflicting ethical obligations. On one side of the issue is the obligation to respect and protect patients' right to privacy. On the other side is the obligation to prevent harm and promote the welfare of the family members, which suggests a responsibility to warn at-risk relatives, even without the patient's consent. In an effort to examine the actual clinical impact of this issue, we conducted a pilot study that explored genetic counselors' experience with this conflict. A survey was developed and made available to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Questions were either multiple-choice responses or open-ended. Almost half of respondents (119/259; 46%) had had a patient refuse to notify an at-risk relative. The most commonly cited reasons for refusal were estranged family relationships, altering family dynamics, insurance discrimination, and employment discrimination, respectively. Of these 119 counselors, 24 (21%) reported that they seriously considered warning the at-risk relatives without patient consent, and one actually did disclose. Three factors consistently made the counselors less likely to disclose: their patient's potential emotional reaction, the relationship between the relative and patient, and the chance that the relative could be aware of the disease by another means. These results suggest that while the conflict is often encountered in clinical practice, it is rare that the situation remains unresolved to the extent that genetic counselors actually consider warning at-risk relatives. However, when the situation was encountered, the counselors in this study reported a lower rate of disclosure without consent than would have been anticipated based on previous studies that used hypothetical situations. It may be that counselors do not recognize a duty to warn at-risk relatives as integral to their role and professional obligations.