Nowhere are the ethical issues in genomic research more complex than in pediatrics. Balancing the sometime conflicting autonomy of the parent and the child, and the best interest of the family and the child, brings up many challenging issues. Addressing this balance, especially in the context of the child's developing maturity and comprehension, requires deep analysis and discussion. Issues discussed include the impact of genetic information on the family, parental versus the child's autonomy, the best interests of the child versus the family, potential limitations on the parents' right to know or not know information about their child, and changing role of the developing child in return of research results. Finally, a dynamic model will be proposed that takes into consideration the child's evolving role in consenting and return of results that can be adapted in different national contexts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AvardD, SenecalK, MadadiP, et al. (2011) Pediatric research and the return of individual research results. J Law Med Ethics, 39:593-604.
2.
BaconPL, HarrisED, ZinielSI, et al. (2015) The development of a preference-setting model for the return of individual genomic research results. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics, 10:107-120.
3.
BeauchampT, ChildressJ (2012) Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
BennetteCS, TrinidadSB, FullertonSM, et al. (2013) Return of incidental findings in genomic medicine: measuring what patients value—development of an instrument to measure preferences for information from next-generation testing (IMPRINT). Genet Med, 15:873-881.
5.
BledsoeMJ, GrizzleWE, ClarkBJ, et al. (2012) Practical implementation issues and challenges for biobanks in the return of individual research results. Genet Med, 14:478-483.
6.
ClaytonEW, McGuireAL (2012) The legal risks of returning results of genomics research. Genet Med, 14:473-477.
7.
DavisDS (1997) Genetic dilemmas and the child's right to an open future. Rutgers Law J, 23:549-592.
8.
DresslerLG, SmolekS, PonsaranR, et al. (2012) IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research. Genet Med, 14:215-222.
9.
FabsitzRR, McGuireA, SharpRR, et al. (2010) Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Circ Cardiovasc Genet, 3:574-580.
10.
FeinbergJ. The child's right to an open future. In AikenW. and LaFolletteH. (eds.). Whose Child?. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield (1980); 124-53.
11.
FernandezCV, KodishE, ShurinS, et al. (2003) Offering to return results to research participants: attitudes and needs of principal investigators in the Children's Oncology Group. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol, 25:704-708.
12.
HarrisED, ZinielSI, AmatrudaJG, et al. (2012) The beliefs, motivations, and expectations of parents who have enrolled their children in a genetic biorepository. Genet Med, 14:330-337.
13.
HelgessonG (2005) Children, longitudinal studies, and informed consent. Med Health Care Philos, 8:307-313.
14.
HensK, CassimanJJ, NysH, et al. (2011a) Children, biobanks and the scope of parental consent. Eur J Hum Genet, 19:735-739.
15.
HensK, LevesqueE, DierickxK (2011b) Children and biobanks: a review of the ethical and legal discussion. Hum Genet, 130:403-413.
16.
HolmIA, IlesBR, ZinielSI, et al. (2015) Participant satisfaction with a preference-setting tool for the return of individual research results in pediatric genomic research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics, 10:414-426.
17.
HolmIA, SavageSK, GreenRC, et al. (2014) Guidelines for return of research results from pediatric genomic studies: deliberations of the Boston Children's Hospital Gene Partnership Informed Cohort Oversight Board. Genet Med, 16:547-552.
18.
JarvikGP, AmendolaLM, BergJS, et al. (2014) Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. Am J Hum Genet, 94:818-826.
19.
JohnsonG, LawrenzF, ThaoM (2012) An empirical examination of the management of return of individual research results and incidental findings in genomic biobanks. Genet Med, 14:444-450.
20.
KnoppersBM, AvardD, SenecalK, et al. (2014) Return of whole-genome sequencing results in paediatric research: a statement of the P3G international paediatrics platform. Eur J Hum Genet, 22:3-5.
21.
KnoppersBM, LevesqueE (2011) Introduction: return of research results: how should research results be handled?. J Law Med Ethics, 39:574-576.
22.
KnoppersBM, ZawatiMH, SenecalK (2015) Return of genetic testing results in the era of whole-genome sequencing. Nat Rev Genet, 16:553-559.
23.
KocarnikJM, FullertonSM (2014) Returning pleiotropic results from genetic testing to patients and research participants. JAMA, 311:795-796.
24.
KohaneIS, MandlKD, TaylorPL, et al. (2007) Medicine. Reestablishing the researcher-patient compact. Science, 316:836-837.
25.
KohaneIS, TaylorPL (2010) Multidimensional results reporting to participants in genomic studies: getting it right. Sci Transl Med, 2:37cm19.
26.
McCulloughLB, BrothersKB, ChungWK, et al. (2015) Professionally responsible disclosure of genomic sequencing results in pediatric practice. Pediatrics, 136:e974-e982.
NCI (2010) Workshop on Release of Research Results to Participants in Biospecimen Studies. Rose Li and Associates, Inc., under subcontract to SAIC-Frederick, Inc., Bethesda, MD.
ParkerLS (2012) Returning individual research results: what role should people's preferences play?. Minn J L Sci Tech, 13:449-484.
31.
Presidential-Commission-for-the-Study-of-Bioethical-Issues (2013) ANTICIPATE and COMMUNICATE: Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts. Services USDoHH, ed., Washington, DC. Available at http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/FINALAnticipateCommunicate_PCSBI_0.pdf. accessed January23, 2017.
32.
RossLF (2013) Predictive genetic testing of children and the role of the best interest standard. J Law Med Ethics, 41:899-906.
33.
SappJC, DongD, StarkC, et al. (2014) Parental attitudes, values, and beliefs toward the return of results from exome sequencing in children. Clin Genet, 85:120-126.
34.
SenecalK, RahimzadehV, KnoppersBM, et al. (2015) Statement of principles on the return of research results and incidental findings in paediatric research: a multi-site consultative process. Genome, 58:541-548.
35.
WolfSM (2012) The past, present, and future of the debate over return of research results and incidental findings. Genet Med, 14:355-357.
36.
WolfSM (2013) Return of results in genomic biobank research: ethics matters. Genet Med, 15:157-159.
37.
WolfSM, CrockBN, Van NessB, et al. (2012) Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genet Med, 14:361-384.
38.
WrightMF, LewisKL, FisherTC, et al. (2014) Preferences for results delivery from exome sequencing/genome sequencing. Genet Med, 16:442-447.
39.
ZawatiMH, ParryD, KnoppersBM (2014) The best interests of the child and the return of results in genetic research: international comparative perspectives. BMC Med Ethics, 15:72.
40.
ZinielSI, SavageSK, HuntingtonN, et al. (2014) Parents' preferences for return of results in pediatric genomic research. Public Health Genomics, 17:105-114.
