Pruebas genéticas directas al consumidor: ¿libre albedrío o vulneración a la autonomía?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18270/rcb.4347Palabras clave:
Consentimiento Informado, Asesoramiento genético, Autonomía, utilitarismo, test directos al consumidorResumen
Propósito/Contexto. En la actualidad existen varios tipos de pruebas genéticas directas al consumidor, algunas para evaluar aspectos relacionados o no con la salud, las cuales generan controversias con respecto al ejercicio de la autonomía.
Metodología/Enfoque. Se realizó una revisión de la literatura de enfoque narrativo sobre la información declarada por las empresas de venta directa en línea, la validez y la utilidad clínica de las pruebas genéticas directas al consumidor en humanos, desde los elementos del respeto a la autonomía de la bioética principialista.
Resultados/Hallazgos. De 48 documentos seleccionados, las temáticas se distribuyeron así: el 29 % sobre pruebas genéticas directas al consumidor relacionadas con salud, un 15 % acerca de pruebas no relacionadas con aspectos de la salud, 15 % correspondieron a información suministrada al público por las empresas, un 27 % sobre validez y utilidad clínica, y un 40 % trataba acerca del respeto a la autonomía y aspectos legales.
Discusión/Conclusiones/Contribuciones. Desde la perspectiva de la concepción de noción autónoma principialista, cuando un individuo accede a las pruebas genéticas directas al consumidor, aun de manera intencional, pero que se promocionan con información/publicidad engañosa, sin asesoramiento genético previo y posterior a los resultados, y en las cuales la validez analítica/clínica es insuficiente, se afecta el nivel de comprensión y la libertad de elegir para la toma de decisiones, por lo tanto, el actuar no es completamente autónomo.
Descargas
Referencias bibliográficas
Allen, Caitlin G., Jazmine Gabriel, Maureen Flynn, Tricia N. Cunningham y Catharine Wang. 2018. “The impact of raw DNA availability and corresponding online interpretation services: a mixed-methods study.” Translational Behavioral Medicine 8 (1): 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibx009
Ascencio-Carbajal, Tania, Garbiñe Saruwatari-Zavala, Fernando Navarro-Garcia y Eugenio Frixione. 2021. “Genetic/genomic testing: defining the parameters for ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI).” BMC Medical Ethics 22 (1): 156. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00720-5
Asociación Médica Mundial. 2016. “Declaración de la AMM sobre las consideraciones éticas de las bases de datos de salud y los biobancos.” https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-la-amm-sobre-las-consideraciones-eticas-de-las-bases-de-datos-de-salud-y-los-biobancos/
Asociación Médica Mundial. 2019. “Declaración de Reikiavik de la AMM sobre consideraciones éticas para el uso de la genética en la salud.” https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-la-amm-sobre-genetica-y-medicina/
Bonython, Wendy Elizabeth, y Bruce Baer Arnold. 2018. “Direct to consumer genetic testing and the libertarian right to test.” Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (11): 787-789. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103778
Borry, Pascal, Heidi C. Howard, Karine Sénécal y Denise Avard. 2010. “Health-related direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a review of companies' policies with regard to genetic testing in minors.” Familial Cancer 9 (1): 51-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-009-9253-9
Bunnik, Eline M., Antina de Jong, Niels Nijsingh y Guido M. W. R. de Wert. 2013. “The new genetics and informed consent: differentiating choice to preserve autonomy.” Bioethics 27 (6): 348-355. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12030
Caulfield, Timothy, y Amy L. McGuire. 2012. “Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: perceptions, problems, and policy responses.” Annual Review of Medicine 63: 23-33. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-062110-123753
Cernat, Alexandra, Naazish S. Bashir y Wendy J. Ungar. 2022. “Considerations for developing regulations for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a scoping review using the 3-I framework.” Journal of Community Genetics 13 (2): 155-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-022-00582-3
Chokoshvili, Davit, Danya Vears y Pascal Borry. 2017. “Growing complexity of (expanded) carrier screening: Direct-to-consumer, physician-mediated, and clinic-based offers.” Best Practice & Research. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 44: 57-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2017.02.006
Consejo de Europa. 1997. “Convenio para la protección de los derechos humanos y la dignidad del ser humano con respecto a las aplicaciones de la biología y la medicina.” Anales del Sistema Sanitario de Navarra 23 (2): 301-309. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6571987
Council of Europe. 2008. “Additional protocol to the convention on human rights and biomedicine, concerning genetic testing for health purposes.” Efectivo julio 01, 2018. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/203.htm
Covolo, Loredana, Sara Rubinelli, Elisabetta Ceretti y Umberto Gelatti. 2015. “Internet-based direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a systematic review.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 17 (12): e279. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4378
Docherty, Anna, Brent Kious, Teneille Brown, et al. 2021. “Ethical concerns relating to genetic risk scores for suicide.” American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric Genetics 186 (8): 433-444. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.b.32871
Eng, Charis, y Richard Sharp. 2010. “Bioethical and clinical dilemmas of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing: the problem of misattributed equivalence.” Science Translational Medicine 2 (17): 17cm5. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3000214
Federal Drug Administration. 2019. “Direct-to-consumer tests.” https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics/direct-consumer-tests
Fernandes Martins, Michelle, Logan T. Murry, Liesl Telford y Frank Moriarty. 2022. “Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: an updated systematic review of healthcare professionals' knowledge and views, and ethical and legal concerns.” European Journal of Human Genetics 30 (12): 1331-1343. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01205-8
Galior, Kornelia, y Nikola A. Baumann. 2020. “Challenges with at-home and mail-in direct-to-consumer testing: preanalytical error, reporting results, and result interpretation.” Clinics in Laboratory Medicine 40 (1): 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cll.2019.11.006
Hawkins, Alice, y Anita Ho. 2012. “Genetic counseling and the ethical issues around direct to consumer genetic testing.” Journal of Genetic Counseling 21 (3): 367-373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9488-8
Horton, Rachel, Gillian Crawford, Lindsey Freeman, Angela Fenwick y Anneke Lucassen. 2019. “Direct-to-consumer genetic testing with third party interpretation: beware of spurious results.” Emerging Topics in Life Sciences 3 (6): 669-674. https://doi.org/10.1042/ETLS20190059
Howard, Heidi Carmen, y Pascal Borry. 2012. “Is there a doctor in the house? : The presence of physicians in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing context.” Journal of Community Genetics 3 (2): 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-011-0062-0
Howard, Heidi Carmen, y Pascal Borry. 2013. “Survey of European clinical geneticists on awareness, experiences and attitudes towards direct-to-consumer genetic testing.” Genome Medicine 5 (5): 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/gm449
Kalokairinou, Louiza, Pascal Borry y Heidi C Howard. 2020. “'It's much more grey than black and white': clinical geneticists' views on the oversight of consumer genomics in Europe.” Personalized Medicine 17 (2): 129-140. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme-2019-0064
Kalokairinou, L., H. C. Howard, S. Slokenberga, et al. 2018. “Legislation of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in Europe: a fragmented regulatory landscape.” Journal of Community Genetics 9 (2): 117-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-017-0344-2
Kaufman, David J., Juli M. Bollinger, Rachel L. Dvoskin y Joan A. Scott. 2012. “Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing.” Journal of Genetic Counseling 21 (3): 413-422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9483-0
Kilbride, Madison K., y Angela R. Bradbury. 2020. “Evaluating web-based direct-to-consumer genetic tests for cancer susceptibility.” JCO Precision Oncology 4: PO.19.00317. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.19.00317
Loi, Michele. 2016. “Direct to consumer genetic testing and the libertarian right to test.” Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (9): 574-577. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-102827
Malgorzata, Madej, Sąsiadek Maria y Witt Michał. 2022. “Genetic testing-whether to allow complete freedom? Direct to consumer tests versus genetic tests for medical purposes.” Journal of Applied Genetics 63 (1): 119-126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13353-021-00670-z
Marietta, Cynthia, y Amy L. McGuire. 2009. “Currents in contemporary ethics. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: is it the practice of medicine?” The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37 (2): 369-374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00380.x
Marzulla, Tessa, J. Scott Roberts, Raymond DeVries, Diane R. Koeller, Robert C. Green y Wendy R. Uhlmann. 2021. “Genetic counseling following direct-to consumer genetic testing: Consumer perspectives.” Journal of Genetic Counseling 30 (1): 329-334. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1309
Mathews, Rebecca, Wayne Hall y Adrian Carter. 2012. “Direct-to-consumer genetic testing for addiction susceptibility: a premature commercialisation of doubtful validity and value.” Addiction 107 (12): 2069-2074. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03836.x
McGuire, Amy, y Wylie Burke. 2008. “An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons.” JAMA 300 (22): 2669-2671. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2008.803
Niemiec, Emilia, Louiza Kalokairinou y Heidi Carmen Howard. 2017. “Current ethical and legal issues in health-related direct-to-consumer genetic testing.” Personalized Medicine 14 (5): 433-445. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme-2017-0029
Orth Matthias. 2021. “Direct to Consumer Laboratory Testing (DTCT) - Opportunities and Concerns.” EJIFCC 32 (2): 209-215.
Orth, Matthias, Erik Vollebregt, Tomaso Trenti, Patti Shih, Mette Tollanes y Sverre Sandberg. 2022. “Direct-to-consumer laboratory testing (DTCT): challenges and implications for specialists in laboratory medicine.” Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 61 (4): 696-702. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-1227
Ormondroyd, Elizabeth, Peter Border, Judith Hayward y Andrew Papanikitas. 2022. “Genomic health data generation in the UK: a 360 view.” European Journal of Human Genetics 30 (7): 782-789. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-021-00976-w
Parens, Erik, y Paul S. Appelbaum. 2019. “On what we have learned and still need to learn about the psychosocial impacts of genetic testing.” The Hastings Center Report 49 (supl. 1): S2-S9. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1011
Patch, Christine, Jorge Sequeiros y Martina C. Cornel. 2009. “Genetic horoscopes: is it all in the genes? Points for regulatory control of direct-to-consumer genetic testing.” European Journal of Human Genetics 17 (7): 857-859. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2008.246
Phillips, Andelka M. 2016. “'Only a click away - DTC genetics for ancestry, health, love…and more: a view of the business and regulatory landscape'.” Applied & Translational Genomics 8: 16-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atg.2016.01.001
Rafiq, Muhammad, Carolina Ianuale, Walter Ricciardi y Stefania Boccia. 2015. “Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a systematic review of european guidelines, recommendations, and position statements.” Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers 19 (10): 535-547. https://doi.org/10.1089/gtmb.2015.0051
Schaper, Manuel, y Silke Schicktanz. 2018. “Medicine, market and communication: ethical considerations in regard to persuasive communication in direct-to-consumer genetic testing services.” BMC Medical Ethics 19 (1): 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0292-3
Schaper, Manuel, Sabine Wöhlke y Silke Schicktanz. 2019. “"I would rather have it done by a doctor"-laypeople's perceptions of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) and its ethical implications.” Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 22 (1): 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-018-9837-y
Schwartz, Lisa M., y Steven Woloshin. 2019. “Medical Marketing in the United States, 1997-2016.” JAMA 321 (1): 80-96. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.19320
Singleton, Amanda, Lori Hamby Erby, Kathryn V. Foisie y Kimberly A. Kaphingst. 2012. “Informed choice in direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) websites: a content analysis of benefits, risks, and limitations.” Journal of Genetic Counseling 21 (3): 433-439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-011-9474-6
Siurana Aparisi, Juan Carlos. 2010. “Los principios de la bioética y el surgimiento de la bioética intercultural.” Veritas 22: 121-157. https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-92732010000100006
Skirton, H., L. Goldsmith, L. Jackson y A. O'Connor. 2012. “Direct to consumer genetic testing: a systematic review of position statements, policies and recommendations.” Clinical Genetics 82 (3): 210-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2012.01863.x
Su, Yeyang, Pascal Borry, Ina C. Otte y Heidi C. Howard. 2013. “"It's our DNA, we deserve the right to test!" A content analysis of a petition for the right to access direct-to-consumer genetic testing.” Personalized Medicine 10 (7): 729-739. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.13.69
Tandy-Connor, Stephany, Jenna Guiltinan, Kate Krempely, et al. 2018. “False-positive results released by direct-to-consumer genetic tests highlight the importance of clinical confirmation testing for appropriate patient care.” Genetics in Medicine 20 (12): 1515-1521. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2018.38
Turrini, Mauro, y Barbara Prainsack. 2016. “Beyond clinical utility: The multiple values of DTC genetics.” Applied & Translational Genomics 8: 4-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atg.2016.01.008
Vayena, Effy. 2015. “Direct-to-consumer genomics on the scales of autonomy.” Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (4): 310-314. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102026
Wade, Christopher H., y Benjamin S. Wilfond. 2006. “Ethical and clinical practice considerations for genetic counselors related to direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic tests.” American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part C, Seminars in Medical Genetics 142C (4): 284-293. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.c.30110
Wasson, Katherine, E. David Cook y Kathy Helzlsouer. 2006. “Direct-to-consumer online genetic testing and the four principles: an analysis of the ethical issues.” Ethics & Medicine 22 (2): 83-91.
Webborn, Nick, Alun Williams, Mike McNamee, et al. 2015. “Direct-to-consumer genetic testing for predicting sports performance and talent identification: Consensus statement.” British Journal of Sports Medicine 49 (23): 1486-1491. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-095343
Wilson, R. Douglas, Isabelle De Bie, Christine M. Armour, et al. 2016. “Joint SOGC-CCMG Opinion for Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening: An Update for All Canadian Providers of Maternity and Reproductive Healthcare in the Era of Direct-to-Consumer Testing.” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 38 (8): 742-762.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2016.06.00
Wright, Caroline F., Alison Hall y Ron L. Zimmern. 2011. “Regulating direct-to-consumer genetic tests: what is all the fuss about?” Genetics in Medicine 13 (4): 295-300. https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181f69dd2
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2024 Revista Colombiana de Bioética
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Los autores que publican en esta revista están de acuerdo con los siguientes términos:
Los autores conservan los derechos de autor y garantizan a la revista el derecho de ser la primera publicación del trabajo al igual que licenciado bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución – No Comercial 4.0 Internacional, que permite a otros compartir el trabajo con un reconocimiento de la autoría del trabajo y la publicación inicial en esta revista.
Las condiciones de la licencia pueden consultarse en este vínculo.
Los autores pueden establecer por separado acuerdos adicionales para la distribución no exclusiva de la versión de la obra publicada en la revista (por ejemplo, situarlo en un repositorio institucional o publicarlo en un libro), con un reconocimiento de su publicación inicial en esta revista.
Se permite y se anima a los autores a difundir sus trabajos electrónicamente (por ejemplo, en repositorios institucionales o en su propio sitio web) antes y durante el proceso de envío, ya que puede dar lugar a intercambios productivos, así como a una citación más temprana y mayor de los trabajos publicados (Véase The Effect of Open Access) (en inglés).
