Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27302841›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2016

Legal approaches regarding health-care decisions involving minors: implications for next-generation sequencing.

Karine Sénécal, Kristof Thys, Danya F Vears, Kristof Van Assche, Bartha M Knoppers, Pascal Borry

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Reply to Kranendonk et al.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2017
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Karine SénécalCentre of Genomics and Policy, Department of Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Kristof ThysCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Danya F VearsCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Kristof Van AsscheResearch Group on Personality Rights and Property Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Bartha M KnoppersCentre of Genomics and Policy, Department of Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Pascal BorryCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BEMcGill Genome Centre · CAUniversity of Antwerp · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are revolutionizing medical practice, facilitating more accurate, sophisticated and cost-effective genetic testing. NGS is already being implemented in the clinic assisting diagnosis and management of disorders with a strong heritable component. Although considerable attention has been paid to issues regarding return of incidental or secondary findings, matters of consent are less well explored. This is particularly important for the use of NGS in minors. Recent guidelines addressing genomic testing and screening of children and adolescents have suggested that as 'young children' lack decision-making capacity, decisions about testing must be conducted by a surrogate, namely their parents. This prompts consideration of the age at which minors can provide lawful consent to health-care interventions, and consequently NGS performed for diagnostic purposes. Here, we describe the existing legal approaches regarding the rights of minors to consent to health-care interventions, including how laws in the 28 Member States of the European Union and in Canada consider competent minors, and then apply this to the context of NGS. There is considerable variation in the rights afforded to minors across countries. Many legal systems determine that minors would be allowed, or may even be required, to make decisions about interventions such as NGS. However, minors are often considered as one single homogeneous population who always require parental consent, rather than recognizing there are different categories of 'minors' and that capacity to consent or to be involved in discussions and decision-making process is a spectrum rather than a hurdle.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingAdolescentAdultCanadaChildDecision MakingEuropean UnionGenetic TestingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansInformed Consent By MinorsSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID27302841
PMCPMC5110060
OpenAlexW2436850014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.