Skip to main content
PMC home page
American Journal of Human Genetics logoLink to American Journal of Human Genetics
. 1999 Mar;64(3):852–860. doi: 10.1086/302293

The duty to recontact: attitudes of genetics service providers.

J L Fitzpatrick 1, C Hahn 1, T Costa 1, M J Huggins 1
PMCID: PMC1377803  PMID: 10053020

Abstract

The term "duty to recontact" refers to the possible ethical and/or legal obligation of genetics service providers (GSPs) to recontact former patients about advances in research that might be relevant to them. Although currently this practice is not part of standard care, some argue that such an obligation may be established in the future. Little information is available, however, on the implications of this requirement, from the point of view of GSPs. To explore the opinions of genetics professionals on this issue, we sent a self-administered questionnaire to 1,000 randomly selected U.S. and Canadian members of the American Society of Human Genetics. We received 252 completed questionnaires. The major categories of respondents were physician geneticist (41%), Ph.D. geneticist (30%), and genetic counselor (18%); 72% of the total stated that they see patients. Respondents indicated that responsibility for staying in contact should be shared between health professionals and patients. Respondents were divided about whether recontacting patients should be the standard of care: 46% answered yes, 43% answered no, and 11% did not know. Those answering yes included 44% of physician geneticists, 53% of Ph.D. geneticists, and 31% of genetic counselors; answers were statistically independent of position or country of practice but were dependent on whether the respondent sees patients (43% answered yes) or not (54% answered yes). There also was a lack of consensus about the possible benefits and burdens of recontacting patients and about various alternative methods of informing patients about research advances. Analysis of qualitative data suggested that most respondents consider recontacting patients an ethically desirable, but not feasible, goal. Points to consider in the future development of guidelines for practice are presented.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (284.2 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Almqvist E., Adam S., Bloch M., Fuller A., Welch P., Eisenberg D., Whelan D., Macgregor D., Meschino W., Hayden M. R. Risk reversals in predictive testing for Huntington disease. Am J Hum Genet. 1997 Oct;61(4):945–952. doi: 10.1086/514873. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Andrews L. B. Legal aspects of genetic information. Yale J Biol Med. 1991 Jan-Feb;64(1):29–40. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Berg D., Hirsh H. L. Duty to recall. South Med J. 1980 Aug;73(8):1041-3, 1045. doi: 10.1097/00007611-198008000-00025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brook R. H. Practice guidelines: to be or not to be. Lancet. 1996 Oct 12;348(9033):1005–1006. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fletcher J. C., Berg K., Tranøy K. E. Ethical aspects of medical genetics. A proposal for guidelines in genetic counseling, prenatal diagnosis and screening. Clin Genet. 1985 Feb;27(2):199–205. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Grimshaw J. M., Russell I. T. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet. 1993 Nov 27;342(8883):1317–1322. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)92244-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hannig V. L., Clayton E. W., Edwards K. M. Whose DNA is it anyway? Relationships between families and researchers. Am J Med Genet. 1993 Aug 15;47(2):257–260. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320470223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Huggins M., Hahn C., Costa T. Staying informed and recontacting patients about research advances: a study of patient attitudes. Am J Hum Genet. 1996 Oct;59(4):A335–A335. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Patenaude A. F. The genetic testing of children for cancer susceptibility: ethical, legal, and social issues. Behav Sci Law. 1996 Autumn;14(4):393–410. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(199623)14:4<393::AID-BSL248>3.0.CO;2-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Pelias M. Z. Duty to disclose in medical genetics: a legal perspective. Am J Med Genet. 1991 Jun 1;39(3):347–354. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320390320. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Sharpe N. F. Psychological aspects of genetic counseling: a legal perspective. Am J Med Genet. 1994 Apr 15;50(3):234–238. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320500305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from American Journal of Human Genetics are provided here courtesy of American Society of Human Genetics

RESOURCES