You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 158 No. 6, June 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (6)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Genetics
 •Genetic Counseling/ Testing/ Therapy
 •Statistics and Research Methods
 •Neonatology and Infant Care
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Informed Consent for Genetic Research

Aaron Hamvas, MD; Katherine K. Madden, RN; Lawrence M. Nogee, MD; Michelle A. Trusgnich, BS; Daniel J. Wegner, BS; Hillary B. Heins, BS; F. Sessions Cole, MD

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158:551-555.

Background  Rapid technological advances in genetic research and public concern about genetic discrimination have led to anticipatory safeguards in the informed consent process in the absence of legal examples of proven discrimination. Despite federal and state regulations to restrict access to personal health information, including genetic information, institutional review boards have required the addition of language to informed consent documents that warns about the risks of discrimination with participation in genetic research.

Objective  To determine the reasons that families refused consent for their infant's participation in a study evaluating a genetic cause of respiratory distress syndrome.

Design  Survey conducted between February 1, 2002, and March 31, 2003.

Setting  Academic, tertiary free-standing children's hospital.

Participants  A convenience sample of 465 families were approached for consent. The 135 families who refused consent were surveyed.

Main Outcome Measures  Reasons for refusal.

Results  Of the nonconsenting families, 79% spontaneously and specifically identified institutionally required language in our consent form concerning the risk of denial of access to health insurance and employment as the primary reason for refusal; 97% indicated that their fears resulted directly from language in our consent form. Only 20% of families who refused consent cited inadequate time to consider the study.

Conclusions  The institutionally required description of risk of genetic discrimination due solely to participation in genetic research was the primary reason for refusal to consent in this cohort. Information about federally and institutionally mandated protections for confidentiality of participants in genetic research should be included in the informed consent document to balance the description of hypothetical risks and more accurately inform subjects.


From the Edward Mallinckrodt Department of Pediatrics, Division of Newborn Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine and St Louis Children's Hospital, St Louis, Mo (Drs Hamvas and Cole, Mss Madden, Trusgnich, and Heins, and Mr Wegner); and the Department of Pediatrics, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (Dr Nogee).



THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Privacy and Equality in Diagnostic Genetic Testing
Nyrhinen et al.
Nurs Ethics 2007;14:295-308.
ABSTRACT  

Perceptions of potential donors in the Swedish public towards information and consent procedures in relation to use of human tissue samples in biobanks: A population-based study
Kettis-Lindblad et al.
Scand J Public Health 2007;35:148-156.
ABSTRACT  

Public Willingness to Participate in and Public Opinions About Genetic Variation Research: A Review of the Literature
Sterling et al.
Am. J. Public Health 2006;96:1971-1978.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do potential sample donors in the Swedish general public think?
Kettis-Lindblad et al.
Eur J Public Health 2006;16:433-440.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2004 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.