The right to know and the right not to know revisited: Part One

Authors: Brownsword, R. and Wale, J.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29482/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41649-017-0012-1

Journal: Asian Bioethics Review

Issue: ISSN: 1793-8759 (Print) 1793-9453 (Online)

Pages: 1-16

Publisher: Springer

eISSN: 1793-9453

ISSN: 1793-8759

DOI: 10.1007/s41649-017-0012-1

Prompted by developments in human genetics, a recurrent bioethical question concerns a person’s ‘right to know’ and ‘right not to know’ about genetic information held that is intrinsically related to or linked to them. In this paper, we will revisit the claimed rights in relation to two particular test cases. One concerns the rights of the 500,000 participants in UK Biobank (UKB) whose biosamples, already having been genotyped, will now be exome sequenced; and the other concerns the rights of pregnant women (and their children) who undergo non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)—a simple blood test that can reveal genetic information about both a fetus and its mother. This two-part paper is in four principal sections. First, we sketch the relevant features of our two test cases. Secondly, we consider the significance of recent legal jurisprudence in the UK and Singapore. Thirdly, we consider how, the jurisprudence apart, the claimed rights might be grounded. Fourthly, we consider the limits on the rights. We conclude with some short remarks about the kind of genetically aware society that we might want to be and how far there is still an opportunity meaningfully to debate the claimed rights.

This data was imported from PubMed:

Authors: Brownsword, R. and Wale, J.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29482/

Journal: Asian Bioeth Rev

Volume: 9

Issue: 1

Pages: 3-18

ISSN: 1793-8759

DOI: 10.1007/s41649-017-0012-1

Prompted by developments in human genetics, a recurrent bioethical question concerns a person's 'right to know' and 'right not to know' about genetic information held that is intrinsically related to or linked to them. In this paper, we will revisit the claimed rights in relation to two particular test cases. One concerns the rights of the 500,000 participants in UK Biobank (UKB) whose biosamples, already having been genotyped, will now be exome sequenced, and the other concerns the rights of pregnant women (and their children) who undergo non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)-a simple blood test that can reveal genetic information about both a foetus and its mother. This two-part paper is in four principal sections. First, we sketch the relevant features of our two test cases. Secondly, we consider the significance of recent legal jurisprudence in the UK and Singapore. Thirdly, we consider how, the jurisprudence apart, the claimed rights might be grounded. Fourthly, we consider the limits on the rights. We conclude with some short remarks about the kind of genetically aware society that we might want to be and how far there is still an opportunity meaningfully to debate the claimed rights.

This data was imported from Scopus:

Authors: Brownsword, R. and Wale, J.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29482/

Journal: Asian Bioethics Review

Volume: 9

Issue: 1-2

Pages: 3-18

eISSN: 1793-9453

ISSN: 1793-8759

DOI: 10.1007/s41649-017-0012-1

© National University of Singapore and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017. Prompted by developments in human genetics, a recurrent bioethical question concerns a person’s ‘right to know’ and ‘right not to know’ about genetic information held that is intrinsically related to or linked to them. In this paper, we will revisit the claimed rights in relation to two particular test cases. One concerns the rights of the 500,000 participants in UK Biobank (UKB) whose biosamples, already having been genotyped, will now be exome sequenced, and the other concerns the rights of pregnant women (and their children) who undergo non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)—a simple blood test that can reveal genetic information about both a foetus and its mother. This two-part paper is in four principal sections. First, we sketch the relevant features of our two test cases. Secondly, we consider the significance of recent legal jurisprudence in the UK and Singapore. Thirdly, we consider how, the jurisprudence apart, the claimed rights might be grounded. Fourthly, we consider the limits on the rights. We conclude with some short remarks about the kind of genetically aware society that we might want to be and how far there is still an opportunity meaningfully to debate the claimed rights.

The data on this page was last updated at 05:16 on February 19, 2020.