ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2016
Legal approaches regarding health-care decisions involving minors: implications for next-generation sequencing.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reconsenting paediatric research participants for use of identifying data.Journal of medical ethics · 2023Article
- Road to FAIR genomes: a gap analysis of NGS data generation and sharing in the Netherlands.BMJ open science · 2022Article
- Attitudes of stakeholders in psychiatry towards the inclusion of children in genomic research.Human genomics · 2018Article
- England uses a competency-based approach to consent for health interventions.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2017Article
- Reply to Kranendonk et al.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2017Article
- The Dutch legal approach regarding health care decisions involving minors in the NGS days.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.