Skip to main content
Log in

Should we respect parents’ views about which results to return from genomic sequencing?

  • Original Investigation
  • Published:
Human Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Genomic sequencing (GS) is now well embedded in clinical practice. However, guidelines issued by professional bodies disagree about whether unsolicited findings (UF)—i.e., disease-causing changes found in the DNA unrelated to the reason for testing—should be reported if they are identified inadvertently during data analysis. This extends to a lack of clarity regarding parents’ ability to decide about receiving UF for their children. To address this, I use an ethical framework, the Zone of Parental Discretion (ZPD), to consider which UF parents should be allowed to choose (not) to receive and examine how well this assessment aligns with existing professional recommendations. Assessment of guidelines shows recommendations ranging from leaving the decision to the discretion of laboratories through to mandatory reporting for UF for childhood onset, treatable/preventable conditions. The ZPD suggests that parents’ decisions should be respected, even where there is no expected benefit, provided that there is not sufficient evidence of serious harm. Using this lens, parents should be able to choose whether or not to know UF for adult-onset conditions in their children, but only insofar as there is insufficient evidence that this knowledge will cause harm or benefit. In contrast, parents should not be allowed to refuse receiving UF for childhood-onset medically actionable conditions. The ZPD is a helpful tool for assessing where it is appropriate to offer parents the choice of receiving UF for their children. This has implications for refinement of policy and laboratory reporting practices, development of consent forms, and genetic counselling practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Adapted from The Zone of Parental Discretion. From ‘When doctors and parents disagree’ (2016). Eds McDougall, Delany and Gillam

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abuzenadah AM, Zaher GF, Dallol A, Damanhouri GA, Chaudhary AG, Al-Sayes F et al (2013) Identification of a novel SBF2 missense mutation associated with a rare case of thrombocytopenia using whole-exome sequencing. J Thromb Thrombolysis 36(4):501–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-012-0864-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • ACMG Board of Directors (2015) ACMG policy statement: updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genet Med 17(1):68–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botkin JR, Belmont JW, Berg JS, Berkman BE, Bombard Y, Holm IA et al (2015) Points to consider: ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. Am J Hum Genet 97:6–21

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boycott K, Hartley T, Adam S, Bernier F, Chong K, Fernandez BA et al (2015) The clinical application of genome-wide sequencing for monogenic diseases in Canada: position statement of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists. J Med Genet 52(7):431–437. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Campos FG (2014) Surgical treatment of familial adenomatous polyposis: dilemmas and current recommendations. World J Gastroenterol 20(44):16620–16629. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i44.16620

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cornelis C, Tibben A, Dondorp W, van Haelst M, Bredenoord AL, Knoers N et al (2016) Whole-exome sequencing in pediatrics: parents’ considerations toward return of unsolicited findings for their child. Eur J Hum Genet. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2016.100 (27 July (Epub ahead of print))

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Diekema DS (2004) Parental refusals of medical treatment: the harm principle as threshold for state intervention. Theor Med Bioeth 25:243–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez CV, Bouffet E, Malkin J, Jabado N, O’Connell C, Avard D et al (2014) Attitudes of parents toward the return of targeted and incidental genomic research findings in children. Genet Med 16(8):633–640. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gillam L (2016) The zone of parental discretion: an ethical tool for dealing with disagreement between parents and doctors about medical treatment for a child. Clin Ethics 11:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green RC, Berg JS, Grody M, Wayne W, Kalia SS, Korf BR, Martin CL et al (2013) ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 15(7):565–574

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kalia SS, Adelman K, Bale SJ, Chung WK, Eng C, Evans JP et al (2017) Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 206 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 19(2):249–255. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDougall R, Gillam L, Gold H (2016) The zone of parental discretion. In: McDougall R, Delany C, Gillam L (eds) When doctors and parents disagree: ethics, paediatrics, and the zone of parental discretion. Federation Press, Leichhardt, pp 14–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Spriggs M (2016) Parent-led request for female genital cosmetic surgery. In: McDougall R (ed) When doctors and parents disagree: ethics, paediatrics, and the zone of parental discretion. Federation Press, Leichhardt, pp 227–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarailo-Graovac M, Shyr C, Ross CJ, Horvath GA, Salvarinova R, Ye XC et al (2016) Exome sequencing and the management of neurometabolic disorders. N Engl J Med 374(23):2246–2255. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1515792

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • van El CG, Cornel MC, Borry P, Hastings RJ, Fellmann F, Hodgson SV et al (2013) Whole-genome sequencing in health care: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet 21(suppl. 1):S1–S5. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2013.46

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Vasen HF, Moslein G, Alonso A, Aretz S, Bernstein I, Bertario L et al (2008) Guidelines for the clinical management of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Gut 57(5):704–713. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2007.136127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vears DF (2016) Genetic carrier testing in children. In: McDougall R, Delany C, Gillam L (eds) When doctors and parents disagree: ethics, paediatrics and the zone of parental discretion. Federation Press, Leichhardt, pp 207–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Vears DF, Sénécal K, Borry P (2017) Reporting practices for unsolicited and secondary findings from next generation sequencing technologies: perspectives of laboratory personnel. Hum Mutat 38(8):905–911. https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.23259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vears DF, Niemiec E, Howard HC, Borry P (2018a) How do consent forms for diagnostic high-throughput sequencing address unsolicited and secondary findings? A content analysis. Clin Genet 94(3–4):321–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.13391

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vears DF, Sénécal K, Clarke AJ, Jackson L, Laberge AM, Lovrecic L et al (2018b) Points to consider for laboratories reporting results from diagnostic genomic sequencing. Eur J Hum Genet 26(1):36–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-017-0043-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vears DF, Borry P, Savulescu J, Koplin JJ (2020) Old challenges or new issues? Genetic health professionals’ experiences obtaining informed consent in diagnostic genomic sequencing. AJOB Empir Bioeth. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2020.1823906

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield CE, Hanlon LV, Tucker KM, Patenaude AF, Signorelli C, McLoone JK et al (2016) The psychological impact of genetic information on children: a systematic review. Genet Med 18(8):755–762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson D (2016) Who should decide for critically ill neonates and how? The grey zone in neonatal treatment decisions. In: McDougall R, Delany C, Gillam L (eds) When doctors and parents disagree: Ethics, paediatrics, and the zone of parental discretion. Federation Press, Leichhardt, pp 57–79

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Danya Vears acknowledges the infrastructure funding received from the Victorian State Government through the Operational Infrastructure Support (OIS) Program and would like to thank Prof Lynn Gillam for her feedback on the manuscript. This work was supported by the Australian Government through the Medical Research Future Fund, as part of the Genomics Health Futures Mission (Grant number 76749).

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. F. Vears.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Danya Vears has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vears, D.F. Should we respect parents’ views about which results to return from genomic sequencing?. Hum Genet 141, 1059–1068 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-021-02293-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-021-02293-0

Navigation