SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Tıp Hukuku Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 4

The right to know and not to know on genetic diagnosis and the genetic before diagnosis related third persons

Genetik teşhisleri ve üçüncü kişilerle ilgili teşhis öncesi genetiği bilme ve bilmeme hakkı

Ferdinand WOLLENSCHLAGER
Pages
17–36
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

For, it prevails even if a predisposition to a life-threatening, but curable disease has been discovered which also concerns her/his relatives.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Predictive genetic tests identifying predispositions to diseases are more and more applied in medical practice (“$ 1, 000 Genome”), but raise many legal questions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In particular, generating information not only about the person tested, but also about her/his relatives, predictive genetic tests require balancing the rights of both, i. e. of the person tested and her/his relatives, to know, not to know and to keep secret one’s genetic predisposition.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:For, it prevails even if a predisposition to a life-threatening, but curable disease has been discovered which also concerns her/his relatives.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Predictive genetic tests identifying predispositions to diseases are more and more applied in medical practice (“$ 1, 000 Genome”), but raise many legal questions. In particular, generating information not only about the person tested, but also about her/his relatives, predictive genetic tests require balancing the rights of both, i. e. of the person tested and her/his relatives, to know, not to know and to keep secret one’s genetic predisposition. The article analyses the constitutional foundation of these rights and the recent German Genetic Diagnosis Act [“Gendiagnostikgesetz (GenDG)”] which has addressed this conflict (cf. §10 para 3 s. 4 and §11 para 3 GenDG), but accorded a (too) great weight to the interest of the person tested to keep secret the test results. For, it prevails even if a predisposition to a life-threatening, but curable disease has been discovered which also concerns her/his relatives.

Özet

Hastalıklara eğilimi tespit eden prediktif genetik testler, tıbbi uy- gulamada gittikçe daha fazla yer almaktadır ($ 1000 Genom); fakat bir- çok hukuki sorunu da beraberinde getirmektedir. Adı geçen testler özel- likle, hem teste tabi olunan kişinin, hem de ilgili kişinin akrabalarının haklarının dengelenmesini gerektirmektedir; teste tabi tutulan kişinin ve akrabalarının kişinin genetik eğilimini bilme, bilmeme ve gizli tutma hakkı gibi. Makale, söz konusu hakların anayasal temellerini ve anılan sorunu da ele alan (cf. §10 para 3 s. 4 and §11 para 3 GenDG) ancak ağırlığını test sonuçlarının sır olarak tutulduğu teste tabi olan kişinin menfaatinden yana tutmuş, yakın zamanda düzenlenen Alman Gen Teş- hisi Kanunu’nu [“Gendiagnostikgesetz (GenDG)”] analiz etmektedir. Söz konusu durum, kişinin eğilimi, hayatı tehdit edici fakat tedavi edile- bilir ve akrabalarını ilgilendiren bir hastalığa dair olsa dahi geçerlidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

WOLLENSCHLAGER, F. (2013). The right to know and not to know on genetic diagnosis and the genetic before diagnosis related third persons. Tıp Hukuku Dergisi, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 4, 17–36. https://ajindex.com/articles/361600

References (34)

  1. BROSIUS-GERSDORF, NJW 2007.
  2. BUCHBORN, E.: MedR 1996.
  3. CORİNTH, A. S.: Ärztliche Schweigepflicht und kollidierende Gesundheitsinteressen Dritter, 2008.
  4. CRAMER, S.: Genom- und Genanalyse, 1991.
  5. CREMER, J.: Berücksichtigung prädikativer Gesundheitsinformationen beim Abschluss privater Versicherungsverträge, 2010.
  6. DAMM, R.: MedR 1999.
  7. DAMM, R.: “Informed Consent und informationelle Selbstbestimmung in der Genmedizin”, FS für Laufs, 2006.
  8. DAMM, R.: in: FS für Helmut Heinrichs, 1998.
  9. DUTTGE, G.: insan üzerinde genetik araştırma yapılmasına dair taslak konusunda kısaca görüşü: (Gendiagnostikgesetz – GenDG, BT- Drucks. 16/3233). DUTTGE, G.: DuD 2010.
  10. DONNER, H. / SİMON, J.: DÖV 1990.
  11. DWORKIN, R. B.: “The Human Genome Project’s Implications for Autonomy, Respect, and Professionalism in Medical Genetics”, Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik 1999.
  12. EBERBACH, W. H.: MedR 2011.
  13. U. DI FABIO, MAUNZ/DÜRIG, GG, 39. EL 07/2001, Art. 2 I, Rn. 192 FISCHER, T.: StGB, 59. Aufl. 2012, § 34, Rn. 22. FRÖHLICH, S./WANG, Y./PETERS, B.: “Schweigepflicht oder Aufklärungspflicht? Eine Umfrage zur Arzt- und Patientenethik”, H.-M. Sass/P. Schröder (Hrsg.), Patientenaufklärung bei genetischem Risiko, 2003.
  14. GENENGER, A.: Das neue Gendiagnostikgesetz, NJW 2010.
  15. GRETTER, B.: ZRP 1994.
  16. GUILLOD, O.: “Tests génétiques et protection de la personnalité. Quelques reflexions”, FS Jacques-Michel Grossen, 1992.
  17. HASSKARL, H. / OSTERTAG, A.: MedR 2005.
  18. HENN, W.: Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik 48 (2002).
  19. HERDEGEN, M.: JZ 2000.
  20. HEYERS, J.: MedR 2009.
  21. HOFMANN, C., Rechtsfragen der Genomanalyse, 1999.
  22. KERN, B.-R.: “Unerlaubte Diagnostik – Das Recht auf Nichtwissen”, C. Dierks (Hrsg.), Genetische Untersuchungen und Persönlichkeitsrecht, 2003.
  23. KERN, B.-R.: MedR 2001.
  24. KERSTEN, J.: PersV 2011.
  25. KERSTEN, J.: JZ 2011.
  26. KLUTH, W.: “DNA-Diagnostik und Persönlichkeitsrecht: Grundrechtskollisionen”, C. Dierks (Hrsg.), Genetische Untersuchungen und Persönlichkeitsrecht, 2003.
  27. KOPPERNOCK, M.: Das Grundrecht auf bioethische Selbstbestimmung, 1997 – zu dessen Ausschnitt”Gene“. KÖNIG, S.: Prädikative Gesundheitsinformationen im Arbeits- und Beamtenrecht und genetischer “Exzeptionalismus“, 2010.
  28. LINDNER, J. F.: MedR 2007.
  29. LORENZ, D.: JZ 2005.
  30. MENZEL, H.-J.: NJW 1989.
  31. MOELLER-HERRMANN, M.: Die Regelung prädiktiver Gentests, 2006.
  32. REGENBOGEN, D. / HENN, W.: MedR 2003.
  33. RIEDER, H.: Genetische Untersuchungen und Persönlichkeitsrecht, 2006.
  34. ROSENAU, H.: in: H. Satzger/B. Schmitt/G. Widmaier (Hrsg.), StGB, 2009, § 34, Rn. 42. ROSENAU,