The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know Revisited: Part One
Open Access
- 13 July 2017
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in Asian Bioethics Review
- Vol. 9 (1-2) , 3-18
Abstract
Prompted by developments in human genetics, a recurrent bioethical question concerns a person’s ‘right to know’ and ‘right not to know’ about genetic information held that is intrinsically related to or linked to them. In this paper, we will revisit the claimed rights in relation to two particular test cases. One concerns the rights of the 500,000 participants in UK Biobank (UKB) whose biosamples, already having been genotyped, will now be exome sequenced, and the other concerns the rights of pregnant women (and their children) who undergo non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)—a simple blood test that can reveal genetic information about both a foetus and its mother. This two-part paper is in four principal sections. First, we sketch the relevant features of our two test cases. Secondly, we consider the significance of recent legal jurisprudence in the UK and Singapore. Thirdly, we consider how, the jurisprudence apart, the claimed rights might be grounded. Fourthly, we consider the limits on the rights. We conclude with some short remarks about the kind of genetically aware society that we might want to be and how far there is still an opportunity meaningfully to debate the claimed rights.Keywords
Funding Information
- King's College London
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Toward an Ethically Sensitive Implementation of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening in the Global ContextHastings Center Report, 2017
- New genetic tests, new research findings: do patients and participants have a right to know – and do they have a right not to know?Law, Innovation and Technology, 2016
- Non-disclosure of genetic risksMedical Law International, 2016
- Montgomery on informed consent: an inexpert decision?Journal of Medical Ethics, 2016
- Don’t forget the legal frameworkMedical Law International, 2015
- For Your Interest? The Ethical Acceptability of Using Non‐Invasive Prenatal Testing to Test ‘Purely for Information’Bioethics, 2014
- Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data setsGenetics in Medicine, 2012
- Managing Access to Biobanks: How Can We Reconcile Individual Privacy and Public Interests in Genetic Research?Medical Law International, 2010
- The Ancillary-Care Responsibilities of Researchers: Reasonable but Not Great ExpectationsJournal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2007
- Does the UK Biobank have a Legal Obligation to Feedback Individual Findings to Participants?Medical Law Review, 2004