한국발생생물학회지:발생과생식 (Development and Reproduction)

  • 제27권1호
  • /
  • Pages.47-56
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 2465-9525(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2465-9541(eISSN)
한국발생생물학회 (The Korean Society of Developmental Biology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Normative Issues in Next Generation Sequencing Gene Testing

  • 투고 : 2023.01.03
  • 심사 : 2023.02.20
  • 발행 : 2023.03.15
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Despite the commercialization of Next generation sequencing (NGS) gene testing, only a few studies have addressed the various ethical and legal problems associated with NGS testing in Korea Here, we reviewed the normative issues that emerged at each stage of the wet analysis and bioinformatics analysis of NGS gene testing. In particular, it was in mind to apply various international guidelines and the principles of bioethics to actual clinical practice. Considering the characteristics of NGS testing, wet analysis of additional testing can be justified if presumptive consent is recognized. Furthermore, the medical relationship between diseases needs to be established and it should be clear that the patient would have given consent if the patient had been aware of the correlation between genes. At the stage of bioinformatics analysis, the question of unsolicited findings arises. In case of unsolicited and relevant findings, according to American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG), a recognized relationship between genes and diseases needs to be established. In case of unsolicited and not-relevant findings, it is almost impossible to determine whether knowing or not knowing the findings is more beneficial to the patient. However, it seems to be certain that the psychological harm an individual may suffer from such information is likely to be greater if the disease is severe and if there is no cure. The list of genes for which the ACMG guidelines impose reporting obligations is a good reference for judgment.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. ACMG (2013) ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 2013;15:7.
  2. ACMG (2022) ACMG SF v3.1 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: A policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genetics in Medicine 2022; 24:1407-1414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2022.04.006
  3. BGHZ (1989) Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen, Bundesgerichtshof, Karlsruhe, Germany, pp 107,222.
  4. Bortolotti L, Widdows H (2011) The right not to know: The case of psychiatric disorders. J Med Ethics 37:673-676. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.041111
  5. Chadwick R, Levitt M, Shickle D (2014) The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know: Genetic Privacy and Responsibility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  6. Creighton S, Almqvist EW, MacGregor D, Fernandez B, Hogg H, Beis J, Welch JP, Riddell C, Lokkesmoe R, Khalifa M, MacKenzie J, Sajoo A, Farrell S, Robert F, Shugar A, Summers A, Meschino W, Allingham-Hawkins D, Chiu T, Hunter A, Allanson J, Hare H, Schween J, Collins L, Sanders S, Greenberg C, Cardwell S, Lemire E, MacLeod P, Hayden MR (2003) Predictive, pre-natal and diagnostic genetic testing for Huntington's disease: The experience in Canada from 1987 to 2000. Clin Genet 63:462-475. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-0004.2003.00093.x
  7. Deutscher Ethikrat (2013) Die Zukunft der genetischen Diagnostik von der Forschung in die klinischen Anwendung. Jahr Wiss Ethik 18:173-A7.
  8. Egalite N, Groisman IJ, Godard B (2014) Genetic counseling practice in next generation sequencing research: Implications for the ethical oversight of the informed consent process. J Genet Couns 23:661-670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9703-x
  9. EuroGentest & European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) (2016) Guidelines for diagnostic next generation sequencing. European Journal of Human Genetics 2016; 24:2-5. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2015.226
  10. Facio FM, Lee K, O'Daniel JM (2014) A genetic counselor's guide to using next-generation sequencing in clinical practice. J Genet Couns 23:455-462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-013-9662-7
  11. Fecteau H, Vogel KJ, Hanson K, Morrill-Cornelius S (2014) The evolution of cancer risk assessment in the era of next generation sequencing. J Genet Couns 23:633-639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9714-7
  12. Feinberg J (2006) The child's right to an open future. In: Curren R (ed), Philosophy of Education: An Anthology. Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp 112-123.
  13. Gadamer HG (2010) uber die Verborgenheit der Gesundheit. Erfahrungsheilkunde 52:644-649.
  14. Gallego CJ, Perez ML, Burt A, Amendola LM, Shirts BH, Pritchard CC, Hisama FM, Bennett RL, Veenstra DL, Jarvik GP (2016). Next generation sequencing in the clinic: A patterns of care study in a retrospective cohort of subjects referred to a genetic medicine clinic for suspected lynch sSyndrome. J Genet Couns 25:515-519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-015-9902-0
  15. GEKO (2013) RL-GEKO fur die Beurteilung genetischer Eigenschaften hinsichtlich ihrer Bedeutung fur Erkrankungen oder gesundheitliche Storungen sowie fur die Moglichkeiten, siezu vermeiden, ihnen vorzubeugen oder sie zu behandeln gemass §23 Abs.2 Nr.1a GenDG", Bundesgesundheitsblatt 56:159-162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-012-1573-5
  16. Habermas J (2011) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Bd.1 & Bd.2, Suhrkamp Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2011.
  17. Huang JT, Heckenlively JR, Thiran Jayasundera K, Branham KE (2014) The ophthalmic experience: Unanticipated primary findings in the era of next generation sequencing. J Genet Couns 23:588-593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-013-9679-y
  18. Kant I (2011). Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklarung? Amazon Media EU, Letzebuerg, Letzebuerg.
  19. Kim NK (2007). The informed consent in the medico-legal context. Korean J Med Law 15:7-28.
  20. Kim NK (2015) Hermeneutical understanding of disabilities and law: Legal policy of gene testing in Korean bioethics and biosafety act. J Korean Bioethics Assoc 16:67-84.
  21. Kim NK (2022) A case of next-generation sequencing gene testing: Points to be considered in testing and reporting. Ann Lab Med 42:296-297. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2022.42.2.296
  22. Knoll AM (2003) The reawakening of complementary and alternative medicine at the turn of the twenty-first century: Filling the void in conventional biomedicine. J Contemp Health Law Policy 20:329-366.
  23. Korean Supreme Court (1994) 94 da 35671 (Nov. 25, 1994, decided).
  24. Korean Supreme Court (1994) 92 da 25885 (Apr. 15, 1994, decided).
  25. Korean Supreme Court (2002) 2001 da 27449 (Jan. 11, 2002, decided).
  26. Korean Supreme Court (2007) 2005 da 69540 (Sep. 7, 2007, decided).
  27. Korean Supreme Court (2015) 2014 da 22871 (Oct. 29, 2015, decided).
  28. McGuire AL, Joffe S, Koenig BA, Biesecker BB, McCullough LB, Blumenthal-Barby JS, Caulfield T, Terry SF, Green RC (2013) Ethics and genomic incidental findings: Laboratories have an obligation to report clinically beneficial incidental findings. Science 340:1047-1048. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240156
  29. Meiser B, Storey B, Quinn V, Rahman B, Andrews L (2016) Acceptability of, and information needs regarding, next-generation sequencing in people tested for hereditary cancer: A qualitative study. J Genet Couns 25:218-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-015-9861-5
  30. O'Neill O (2002) Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  31. O'Neill O (2008) Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  32. Texas Supreme Court (1983) Peterson v. Shields, 652 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.).
  33. Wachsmuth W, Schreiber HL (1985). Der unheilvolle Weg in die defensive Medizin: Reden und Aufsatze 1930-1984. Springerverlag, Berlin, Germany, pp 180-188.
  34. Yi SD, Kim NK (2017) Medical Law. Bubmoon, Paju, Korea.