GreenR. C., “ACMG Recommendations for Reporting Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing,”Genetics in Medicine15, no. 7(2013): 565–574, at 568 [hereinafter ACMG Report].
2.
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, Anticipate and Communicate: Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts, 64 (2013) [hereinafter PCSBI Report].
3.
A number of commentators and a recent report by the PCSBI argue that possible abnormal genomic findings that are not the primary target of the test, but are actively sought by a practitioner, should be called “secondary findings.”Id. (PCSBI Report, at 28).
4.
Similarly, others argue that “actively looked for incidental findings constitute a new category of data” and prefer the term “nonincidental secondary findings.” AnastasovaV., “Genomic Incidental Findings: Reducing the Burden to Be Fair,”American Journal of Bioethics13 (2013): 52–54, at 52, n.2. The present article refers to actively sought, but non-primary target genomic findings, as “secondary targets”.
5.
SuP., “Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Comprehensive View,”Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine86, no. 3(2013): 359–365.
SchweigerM. R., “Genomics and Epigenomics: New Promises of Personalized Medicine for Cancer Patients,”Briefings in Functional Genomics12, no. 5(2013): 411–421.
ScuffhamT. M.MacmillanJ. C., “Huntington Disease: Who Seeks Presymptomatic Genetic Testing, Why and What Are the Outcomes?”Journal of Genetic Counseling23, no. 5(2014): 754–761.
PetrucelliN., “BRCA1 and BRCA2 Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer,”GeneReviews, available at <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1247/>(last visited November 25, 2014).
National Human Genome Research Institute, “DNA Sequencing Costs: Data from the NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program (GSP),” available at <http://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/>(last visited November 25, 2014).
17.
GreenE. D.GuyerM. S., “Charting a Course for Genomic Medicine from Base Pairs to Bedside,”Nature470, no. 7333(2011): 204–213.
18.
WalshT., “Detection of Inherited Mutations for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Using Genomic Capture and Massively Parallel Sequencing,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America107, no. 28(2010): 12629–12633.
19.
ShendureJ.AidenE. L., “The Expanding Scope of DNA Sequencing,”Nature Biotechnology30, no. 11(2012): 1084–1094.
20.
EvansJ. P., “We Screen Newborns, Don't We?: Realizing the Promise of Public Health Genomics,”Genetics in Medicine15, no. 5(2013): 332–334.
21.
HarperA. R.TopolE. J., “Pharmacogenomics in Clinical Practice and Drug Development,”Nature Biotechnology30, no. 11(2012): 1117–1124.
22.
CressmanA. M.Piquette-MillerM., “Epigenetics: A New Link toward Understanding Human Disease and Drug Response,”Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics92, no. 6(2012): 669–673.
23.
KuC. S., “Studying the Epigenome Using Next Generation Sequencing,”Journal of Medical Genetics48, no. 11(2011): 721–730.
24.
BieseckerL. G.GreenR. C., “Diagnostic Clinical Genome and Exome Sequencing,”New England Journal of Medicine371, no. 12(2014): 2418–2425.
25.
MoyerV. A., “United States Preventive Services Task Force. Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing for BRCA-Related Cancer in Women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement,”Annals of Internal Medicine160, no. 4(2014): 271–281.
26.
see also, WhitlockE. P., “Screening for Hereditary Hemochromatosis: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force,”Annals of Internal Medicine145, no. 3(2006): 209–223.
27.
Id.;
28.
KohaneI. S., “The Incidentalome: A Threat to Genomic Medicine,”JAMA296, no. 2(2006): 212–15.
29.
BurkeW., “Recommendations for Returning Genomic Incidental Findings? We Need to Talk!”Genetics in Medicine15, no. 11(2013): 854–859, at 856.
30.
KlitzmanR., “Return of Secondary Genomic Findings vs Patient Autonomy,”JAMA310, no. 4(2013): 369–370, 369.
31.
RossL. F., “Mandatory Extended Searches in All Genome Sequencing: ‘Incidental Findings,’ Patient Autonomy, and Shared Decision Making,”JAMA310, no. 4(2013): 367–368, at 367.
32.
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110–233, 122 Stat. 881;
33.
RothsteinM. A., “Putting the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in Context,”Genetics in Medicine10, no. 9(2008): 655–656, at 655.
34.
KlitzmanR., “Exclusion of Genetic Information From the Medical Record,”JAMA304, no. 10(2010): 1120–1121;
35.
National Human Genome Research Institute, “Genetic Discrimination,” available at <http://www.genome.gov/10002077>(last visited November 25, 2014).
36.
BeauchampT. L.ChildressJ. F., Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012): At 106–110.
37.
U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Universal Declaration of Human Genome and Human Rights: Article 5(c), Resolution 16 adopted by the General Conference at its 29th Session, Records of the General ConferenceVol. 1, at 43 (1997) [hereinafter Universal Declaration Article 5].
38.
Task Force on Genetic Testing, Joint National Institutes of Health-Department of Energy Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Working Group of the Human Genome Project, Promoting Safe and Effective Genetic Testing in the United States, Chapter 1 (1997) available at <http://www.genome.gov/10002405>(last visited November 25, 2014) [hereinafter U.S. Task Force on Genetic Testing].
39.
WolfS. M., “Patient Autonomy and Incidental Findings in Clinical Genomics,”Science340, no. 6136(2013): 1049–1050, at 1049.
40.
AllyseM.MichieM., “Not-So-Incidental Findings: The ACMG Recommendations on the Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Whole Genome and Whole Exome Sequencing,”Trends in Biotechnology31, no. 8(2013): 439–441, at 439.
41.
see Burke, supra note 13, at 855.
42.
Klitzman, supra note 13.
43.
Ross, supra note 13, at 368.
44.
See ACMG Reportsupra note 1, at 568.
45.
American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, “ACMG Practice Guidelines: Incidental Findings in Clinical Genomics: A Clarification,”Genetics in Medicine15, no. 8(2013): 664–666, 664 [hereinafter ACMG Clarification].
See MaronD. F., “Patients Can Now Choose Not to Know Their Own DNA Secrets,”Scientific American, April 1, 2014, available at <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patients-can-now-choose-not-to-know-their-own-dna-secrets/>(last visited November 25, 2014) (quoting ACMG President Gail Herman: “At this point we are not recommending selective opting out,”…. “Of course the physician and the patient can decide what is in the patient's best interest, but we are not [recommending] that at this level at this point”.
59.
See PCSBI Report, supra note 1, at 64 (emphasis added).
60.
FrankelT., “Fiduciary Law,”California Law Review71, no. 3(1983): 795–836, at 795; The present article offers a perspective of the physician as a fiduciary grounded in trust, agency, and health law. Still, others describe the physician as a “moral fiduciary of the patient ” and state that the moral foundations of the physician as a fiduciary are the virtues of: Self-effacement, self-sacrifice, compassion, and integrity. This view has different implications for the physician-patient relationship and results in the physician playing a more protective role for the patient.
61.
ChervenakF. A.McCulloughL. B., “The Moral Foundation of Medical Leadership: The Professional Virtues of the Physician as Fiduciary of the Patient,”American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology184, no. 5(2001): 875–880, at 876.
62.
Restatement(Third) of Trusts §2 (2003).
63.
Restatement (Third) of Trusts §3 (2003).
64.
See Frankel, supra note 25, at 809–816.
65.
Restatement(Third) of Trusts §70 (2007) (Comment on Clause (b)).
66.
Restatement (Third) of Trusts §§76, 78, 82 (2007).
67.
HafemeisterT. L.BryanS. P., “Beware Those Bearing Gifts: Physicians' Fiduciary Duty to Avoid Pharmaceutical Marketing,”University of Kansas Law Review57, no. 3(2009): 491–537, at 519–520.
68.
ScottE. S.ScottR. E., “Parents as Fiduciaries,”Virginia Law Review81, no. 8(1995): 2401–2476, at 2401–2403.
69.
MatthewD. B., “Implementing American Health Care Reform: The Fiduciary Imperative,”Buffalo Law Review59, no. 3(2011): 715–807, at 746.
70.
LabyA. B., “Resolving Conflicts of Duty in Fiduciary Relationships,”American University Law Review54, no. 1(2004): 75–149, at 149.
71.
DuncanM. J., “Legal Malpractice by Any Other Name: Why a Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Does Not Smell as Sweet,”Wake Forest Law Review34, no. 4(1999): 1137–1177.
72.
RothsteinM. A.SiegalG., “Health Information Technology and Physicians' Duty to Notify Patients of New Medical Developments,”Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy12, no. 2(2012): 93–136, 113–114.
73.
but see RodwinM. A., “Strains in the Fiduciary Metaphor: Divided Physician Loyalties and Obligations in a Changing Health Care System,”American Journal of Law & Medicine21, nos. 2–3(1995): 241–257, at 247–248.
74.
DeMottD. A., “Breach of Fiduciary Duty: On Justifiable Expectations of Loyalty and Their Consequences,”Arizona Law Review48, no. 4(2006): 925–956, at 934–935.
75.
SmithD. G., “The Critical Resource Theory of Fiduciary Duty,”Vanderbilt Law Review55, no. 5(2002): 1399–1497, at 1497.
76.
See Matthew, supra note 29, at 745–747.
77.
Restatement(Third) Of Agency §1.01 (2006).
78.
See Matthew, supra note 29, at 753–754.
79.
See DeMott, supra note 30.
80.
Smithsupra note 30.
81.
See Frankel, supra note 25, at 809.
82.
Lockett v. Goodill, 430 P.2d 589, 591 (Wash.1967);
83.
HafemeisterT. L.SpinosS., “Lean on Me: A Physician's Fiduciary Duty to Disclose an Emergent Medical Risk to the Patient,”Washington University Law Review86, no. 5(2009): 1167–1210, at 1187–1188.
84.
HallM. A., Medical Liability and Treatment Relationships, 2nd ed., BeenV., eds. (New York: Wolters Kluwer Law and Business, 2008): At 173.
85.
Lockett, 430 P.2d at 591.
86.
Emmett v. E. Dispensary & Cas. Hosp., 396 F.2d 931, 935 (D.C. Cir. 1967).
87.
Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 782 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
88.
Cobbs v. Grant, 502 P.2d 1, 11–12 (Cal. 1972).
89.
Miller v. Kennedy, 522 P.2d 852, 860 (Wash. 1974).
90.
Truman v. Thomas, 611 P.2d 902, 906 (Cal. 1980).
91.
MacDonald v. Clinger, 446 N.Y.S.2d 801, 805 (1982).
92.
Tighe v. Ginsberg, 540 N.Y.S.2d 99, 100 (1989).
93.
Moore v. Regents of Univ. of California, 793 P.2d 479, 483 (Cal. 1990).
94.
San Roman v. Children's Heart Ctr., Ltd., 954 N.E.2d 217, 223 (2010).
95.
Walk v. Ring44 P.3d 990, 999 (Ariz. 2002).
96.
Lockett, 430 P.2d at 591.
97.
Canterbury, 464 F.2d at 782.
98.
See RothsteinSiegal, supra note 29, at 113–114.
99.
Rodwin, supra note 29, at 247–248.
100.
Canterbury, 464 F.2d at 782.
101.
Parris v. Limes, 2012 OK 18, 277 P.3d 1259, 1265.
102.
Cobbs, 502 P.2d at 12.
103.
Miller, 522 P.2d at 860.
104.
Truman, 611 P.2d at 906 (quotation marks omitted).
American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, “ACMG Policy Statement: Points to Consider for Informed Consent for Genome/Exome Sequencing,”Genetics in Medicine15, no. 9(2013): 748–749, at 748.
115.
See ACMG Report, supra note 1, at 568.
116.
Restatement(Third) of Trusts §82 (2007) (section c).
117.
Restatement(Third) Of Agency §8.11 (2006).
118.
See ACMG Report, supra note 1, at 570–571.
119.
Id., at 568.
120.
TopolE. J., “Individualized Medicine from Prewomb to Tomb,”Cell157, no. 1(2014): 241–253.
121.
Brooks-WilsonA. R., “Genetics of Healthy Aging and Longevity,”Human Genetics132, no. 12(2013): 1323–1338, at 1330.
122.
HarrisR., “Reconsidering the Criteria for Evaluating Proposed Screening Programs: Reflections from 4 Current and Former Members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force,”Epidemiologic Reviews33 (2011): 20–35.
123.
Klitzman, supra note 13.
124.
Ross, supra note 13.
125.
Moyer, supra note 12.
126.
JonasD. E., “Chapter 11: Challenges in and Principles for Conducting Systematic Reviews of Genetic Tests used as Predictive Indicators,”Journal of General Internal Medicine27, Supp. 1 (2012): S83–S93, at S85.
127.
See Moyer, supra note 12, at 278.
128.
Klitzman, supra note 13.
129.
Ross, supra note 13.
130.
Burke, supra note 13, at 856.
131.
but see ACMG Clarification, supra note 16, at 665.
132.
GreenR. C., “Reporting Genomics Sequencing Results to Ordering Clinicians: Incidental, but Not Exceptional,”JAMA310, no. 4(2013): 365–366.
133.
McGuireA. L., “Ethics and Genomic Incidental Findings,”Science340, no. 6136(2013): 1047–1048.
134.
See LineweaverT. T., “Effect of Knowledge of APOE Genotype on Subjective and Objective Memory Performance in Health Older Adults,”American Journal of Psychiatry171, no. 2(2014): 201–208.
135.
but see GreenR. C., “Reveal Study Group: Disclosure of APOE Genotype for Risk of Alzheimer's Disease,”New England Journal of Medicine361, no. 3(2009): 245–254.
136.
See ACMG Report, supra note 1, at 570–571.
137.
AldersMannens, supra note 17.
138.
CirinoHo, supra note 5.
139.
TimmermansS.BuchbinderM., “Patients-in-Waiting: Living between Sickness and Health in the Genomics Era,”Journal of Health and Social Behavior51, no. 4(2010): 408–423.
140.
See Klitzman, supra note 13.
141.
McGuire, supra note 55, at 1048.
142.
Id.
143.
See supra note 14.
144.
See National Human Genome Research Institute, “Table of State Statutes Related to Genomics,” available at <http://www.genome.gov/27552194>(last visited November 25, 2014).
RothsteinM. A., “GINA's Beauty Is Only Skin Deep,”Gene-Watch22, no. 2(2009): 9–12.
148.
In addition, with the advent of electronic health records many questions remain about what information should be included and how genetic information may be protected. The potential inclusion of genetic information in electronic medical records makes information about secondary targets even more material to patient interests given the added risk of privacy breaches for digitally stored information. HazinR., “Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Incorporating Genomic Information into Electronic Health Records,”Genetics in Medicine15, no. 10(2013): 810–816, at 813.
149.
RothsteinM. A., “Access to Sensitive Information in Segmented Electronic Health Records,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics40, no. 2(2012): 394–400.
150.
Restatement(Third) of Trusts §82 (2007) (section c).
151.
Restatement(Third) Of Agency §8.11 (2006).
152.
Canterbury, 464 F.2d at 787.
153.
Id., at 788.
154.
Cobbs, 502 P.2d at 12.
155.
see also BeauchampChildress, supra note 15, at 110, 137.
156.
See Wolf, supra note 15, at 1049.
157.
See PCSBI Report, supra note 1, at 66–68.
158.
See Frankel, supra note 25, at 809–816.
159.
Id., at 809.
160.
See supra notes 36, 73.
161.
See ACMG Report, supra note 1, at 568.
162.
Restatement(Third) Of Agency §8.05 (2006).
163.
Restatement (Third) of Trusts §78 (2007).
164.
See Bouvia v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 225 Cal. Rptr. 297, 306 (1986).
165.
see also Cruzan v. Mo. Dep't of Health497U.S.261 (1990).
166.
Id. (Bouvia), at 306.
167.
Restatement(Third) Of Agency §8.09 (2006).
168.
Restatement(Third) of Trusts §76 (2007).
169.
See supra notes 41–42.
170.
Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp., 105N.E.92, 93 (N.Y. 1914).
171.
Cruzan, at 270 (1990).
172.
Bouvia, at 306.
173.
See Laby, supra note 29, at 113–114.
174.
AMA Ethics Opinion 10.015, supra note 45.
175.
See ACMG Report, supra note 1, at 568.
176.
Restatement(Third) of Trusts §74 (2007).
177.
see also Restatement (Third) of Trusts §78 (2007) (Commentaries c(3)).
AndornoR., “The Right Not to Know: An Autonomy-Based Approach,”Journal of Medical Ethics30, no. 5(2004): 435–439.
203.
See Universal Declaration Article 5, supra note 15.
204.
Katz RothmanB., “Genetic Counselling: Placing the Room in Context,” in Rehmann-SutterC.MüllerH., eds., Disclosure Dilemmas (2009): At 19, 22–23.
205.
See PCSBI Report, supra note 1, at 64 (emphasis added).
206.
See McGuire, supra note 55, at 1048.
207.
See Klitzman, supra note 13, at 369.
208.
EvansB. J., “Minimizing Liability Risks under the ACMG Recommendations for Reporting Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing,”Genetics in Medicine15, no. 12(2013): 915–920, at 916.
209.
ClaytonE. W., “Managing Incidental Genomic Findings: Legal Obligations of Clinicians,”Genetics in Medicine15, no. 8(2013): 624–629.
210.
RothsteinSiegal, supra note 29, at 94, 113–114.
211.
See Evans, supra note 105, at 917.
212.
Wolf, supra note 15, at 1049.
213.
Pate v. Threlkel, 661 So.2d 278 (Fla. 1995).
214.
DerseA. R., “What Part of “No” Don't You Understand? Patient Refusal of Recommended Treatment in the Emergency Department,”Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine72, no. 4(2005): 221–227, at 223 (internal quotation marks omitted).
215.
See Safer v. Estate of Pack, 677 A.2d 1188, 1192 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996).
216.
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 551 P.2d. 334 (Cal. 1976).
217.
OffitK., “The ‘Duty to Warn’ a Patient's Family Members about Hereditary Disease Risks,”JAMA292, no. 12(2004): 1469–1473.
218.
ClaytonE. W., “Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Genomic Medicine,” New England Journal of Medicine349, no. 6(2003): 562–569, at 566.
219.
WilfondB. S.NolanK., “National Policy Development for the Clinical Application of Genetic Diagnostic Technologies: Lessons from Cystic Fibrosis,”JAMA270, no. 24(1993): 2948–2954.