Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34971444›Full record

ArticleMonash bioethics review2021

Consent for rapid genomic sequencing for critically ill children: legal and ethical issues.

Christopher Gyngell, Fiona Lynch, Zornitza Stark, Danya Vears

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Monash bioethics review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher GyngellDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. christopher.gyngell@mcri.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1340-3947
Fiona LynchMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Zornitza StarkDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Danya VearsDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AUMurdoch Children's Research Institute · AU

Funding

Medical Research Future Fund 76749State Government of Victoria Operational Infrastructure Report
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although rapid genomic sequencing (RGS) is improving care for critically ill children with rare disease, it also raises important ethical questions that need to be explored as its use becomes more widespread. Two such questions relate to the degree of consent that should be required for RGS to proceed and whether it might ever be appropriate to override parents' decisions not to allow RGS to be performed in their critically ill child. To explore these questions, we first examine the legal frameworks on securing consent for genomic sequencing and how they apply to the specific context of RGS for critically ill children. We then use a tool from clinical ethics, the Zone of Parental Discretion, to explore two case studies and identify under which circumstances it might be appropriate for parental refusal of RGS to be overridden. We argue that RGS may be a context where, in addition to assessing the complexity of the test offered, it is ethically appropriate to consider an effect on patient outcomes when deciding the degree of consent required. We also suggest that there are some contexts where it may be ethically justified to perform RGS, even when it is actively against the wishes of the parents. More work is needed to examine exactly how 'time-sensitive' exceptions to current guidance on consent for genomic sequencing could be formulated and operationalised for RGS for critically ill-children.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessParentsEthics, ClinicalGenomicsHumansInformed ConsentClinical decision-makingConsentIntensive careParental consentRapid genomic sequencingZone of parental discretion

Identifiers

PMID34971444
OpenAlexW4206604238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.