ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2026
Genomic Medicine and Individual Autonomy: Reflections on Knowledge Societies and Governmentality.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Portable, Patient-Possessed Health Record: Architecture for Care Coordination as an Alternative to Centralized Data Aggregation.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper offers a comprehensive analysis of the multifaceted implications of genomic medicine's evolving regulatory frameworks on individual autonomy. As genomic technologies increasingly permeate healthcare and society, they fundamentally reshape the boundaries of health and disease, profoundly impacting personal identity and self-understanding. The expansion of genomic surveillance and risk classification introduces new forms of scrutiny and vigilance, as individuals are redefined according to probabilistic genetic markers rather than traditional clinical symptoms. Regulatory developments facilitate compulsory interventions and challenge established notions of informed consent, as genetic risk factors in otherwise healthy individuals prompt preemptive medicalization and intervention. These changes heighten the risk of genetic discrimination and reinforce social stratifications, as access to care, insurance, and employment may become contingent upon genomic profiles. Furthermore, the commodification of genetic information raises significant concerns about privacy, ownership, and the potential misuse of personal data by commercial and governmental entities. The increasingly blurred lines between medical necessity and social control highlight constitutional and ethical dilemmas, particularly regarding the balance of public health priorities and the preservation of individual freedoms. Drawing on theoretical frameworks such as Stehr's knowledge society and governmentality, the paper critically examines how regulatory responses both reflect and shape broader societal values, often introducing persistent uncertainty and vulnerability into the core of personal and collective identity. Ultimately, the analysis underscores the urgent need for innovative governance models that can effectively balance the promise of scientific and technological advances with the protection of personal autonomy, democratic knowledge control, and social justice in the genomic era. Lay statement: This paper explores how new rules and regulations around genetic medicine can impact people's personal freedoms and sense of identity. It highlights concerns about privacy, discrimination, and the ways in which our understanding of health and disease is changing, calling for better protections and fairer policies as genetic technologies become more common.
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.