ReviewCurrent genetic medicine reports2020
From Beyond the Grave: Use of Medical Information from the Deceased to Guide Care of Living Relatives.
Review in Current genetic medicine reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From collected stamps to hair locks: ethical and legal implications of testing DNA found on privately owned family artifacts.Human genetics · 2023Article
- To use or not to use? an ethical analysis of access to data and samples of a deceased patient for genetic diagnostic and research purposes.Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewIn order to inform patients of their genetic risks, access to the medical records and/or stored samples of their relatives is often helpful. We consider some of the obstacles to such access when these relatives are deceased and suggest how they might be navigated. RECENT
findingsWe explore an issue first highlighted in 2004 by Lucassen et al. (Br Med J 328:952-953, 2004) and re-evaluate it in the wake of novel technologies and mainstreaming of genomic medicine. We find that it is still an issue in practice despite professional guidelines advocating access to familial information (Joint Committee on Genomics in Medicine 2019) and that the Human Tissue Act 2004 is often wrongly constructed as a reason to block access. Access is often obstructed by failing to adopt the necessary relational concept of autonomy that applies in genetic medicine as reported by Horton and Lucassen (Curr Genet Med Rep 7:85-91, 2019) and by considering confidentiality to be absolute, even after death. In response to a recent legal case about the confidentiality of genetic test results, and their disclosure to family members (ABC v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust 2020), Dove et al. (J Med Ethics 45:504-507, 2019) suggested that a duty to consider the interests of genetic relatives could co-exist alongside a duty of confidentiality to a patient. In this way, healthcare professionals can use professional judgement about the relative value of genetic information to family members. This is equally relevant in accessing deceased relatives' information. A recent systematic review found a high level of acceptability of postmortem use of genetic data for medical research amongst participants and their relatives, and it is reasonable to assume that this acceptability would extend to clinical practice as reported by Bak et al. (Eur J Hum Genet 28:403-416, 2020). SUMMARY: Within clinical practice, access to medical records/samples of deceased relatives is often obstructed unnecessarily, potentially resulting in harm to the living relatives seeking advice. Consent to such access is important but need not be the bureaucratic hurdle that is often imposed.
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.