1 / 20

Studium Generale Lecture Series April/May 2011 Ethical dilemmas in health care

Studium Generale Lecture Series April/May 2011 Ethical dilemmas in health care dr. Ron Berghmans, dr. Wybo Dondorp, dr. Jenny Slatman, prof.dr. Guido de Wert FHML/Dept. Health, Ethics & Society. Ethical dilemmas. Predictive testing of adults and children (12/4, GdW)

Download Presentation

Studium Generale Lecture Series April/May 2011 Ethical dilemmas in health care

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Studium Generale Lecture Series April/May 2011 Ethical dilemmas in health care dr. Ron Berghmans, dr. Wybo Dondorp, dr. Jenny Slatman, prof.dr. Guido de Wert FHML/Dept. Health, Ethics & Society

  2. Ethical dilemmas • Predictive testing of adults and children (12/4, GdW) • Abortion revisited (19/4, WD) • Prenatal diagnosis and embryo selection (26/4, GdW) • Bodily integrity in reconstruct. medicine ((10/5, JS) • Genetic screening and DTC tests (17/5, WD) • Euthanasia and assisted suicide (24/5, RB)

  3. Predictive genetic testing: what are we talking about? Individual testing vs population screening Postnatal vd prenatal testing Minors/children vs adults Presymptomatic vs susceptibility testing

  4. 2 cases: Huntington disease and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer • HD: autosomal dominant, complete penetrance, mostly of midlife-onset, lethal 2. HBOC: autosomal dominant, incomplete penetrance, onset from early adulthood onwards, preventive and therapeutic options

  5. Presymptomatic testing for HD: yes or no? No: firstly, do no harm Yes: • respect for autonomy • the subjectivity of harm • relevant empirical findings

  6. Protocol: presymptomatic testing for HD and HBOC • Inclusion-/exclusion criteria • Preparing for the test • Informing about the test results • Post-test counseling

  7. I. Inclusion criteria • Voluntariness: implication of respect for autonomy/self-determination • Competence: a necessary condition of autonomy • Majority?

  8. Minors: 3 age categories • - 12 y: incompetent, parents decide; • 12-16 y: if competent: shared decision making; double consent; • > 16 y: competent (in principle): independent decision making authority

  9. PGT in incompetent children Strong consensus: 1. The best interests of the child are of paramount importance 2. Postponement of testing in order to respect the child’s right not to know 3. The strongest justification: the health interests of the child

  10. Presymptomatic testing on the request of the parents: the HD case Against testing: • the child’s right not to know • a high risk of serious harm For testing: ‘empiricism’ • no evidence of harms of testing • possible harms of not-testing What do you think – and why?

  11. Some other cases 1. MEN type 2A 2. HBOC 3. DMD (Duchenne)

  12. II. Preparation for the test1. Pretest counseling- aims- necessity- pros and cons of group sessions

  13. II. Preparation (cont.) 2. Informed consent Information • medical • non-medical Consent: voluntariness

  14. III. Informing about the test results: what about the relatives? Medical secrecy/the right to confidentiality 3 views: • secrecy is absolute • the patient is the family: relatives ‘own’ the information • keep the secret, except in case of a conflict of duties

  15. Informing relatives (cont.) Conditions: • various efforts to get consent have failed • the doctor feels he is in a conflict of duties • there is a high risk of serious harm for the relatives (s) • informing the relative(s) will probably prevent serious harm • no more information is provided than is strictly necessary

  16. Informing relatives: some cases • The Huntington case: • pro: reproductive interests • con: • fatal information • empiricial evidence?

  17. Informing relatives (cont.) • The HBOC case • con: ? • pro: ?

  18. IV. Post-test counseling Points to consider: • understanding and integrating the test result • choosing between (reproductive and other) options • participating in scientific research

  19. Susceptibility testing • Often: low predictive value • Implications for ethical evaluation? - low risk of discrimination? - low risk of conflict of interests? - low risk of psychosocial harm?

  20. Low risk … low benefits? 1. No categoral distinction: - maybe key genes > predictive value - combination tests 2. Benefits? - motivation to healthy lifestyle? - false reassurance: contraproductive consequences?

More Related