Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Reflections

Vol. 8 No. 1 (2004)

To Warn or Not to Warn? Genetic Information, Families, and Physician Liability

  • Jennifer L Gold
DOI
https://doi.org/10.26443/mjm.v8i1.380
Submitted
October 25, 2020
Published
2020-12-01

Abstract

Genetic testing raises a number of legal issues. Physicians providing genetic testing may be faced with questions related to privacy, confidentiality, and the duty to warn. Because genetic information is by its very nature familial, genetic test results may have implications for others not privy to the particular physician-patient relationship. This can result in a legal and ethical quandary for the treating physician. This paper addresses questions with respect to genetic testing and the legal obligations of physicians. First, can a physician legally breach doctor-patient confidentiality to inform a family member of a genetic risk? Second, does the physician have a duty to warn the interested third party of that risk? And if the physician fails to warn that party, could s/he be found liable? These questions are addressed here in a comparative fashion, examining Canadian (and, where appropriate, American) common law as well as Quebec civil law. The paper concludes that physicians should be liable for the duty to warn in the context of genetic information only when the risk is serious, imminent, and avoidable.

References

  1. Lawrence Berkeley National Library. What is Genetic Testing? Accessed 10 March 2004. http://www.lbl.gov/Education/ELSI/Frames/genetic-testing-f.html
  2. Roy DJ, William JR, Dickens BM. Bioethics in Canada. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Canada, 1994.
  3. Wertz DC , Fletcher JC, Berg K. Guidelines on Ethical Issues in Medical Genetics and the Provision of Genetic Services. Geneva: WHO, 1995.
  4. Flanagan W. Genetic Data and Medical Confidentiality. Health Law Journal 3: 269; 1995.
  5. McInerney v. MacDonald [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138.
  6. Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Privacy Legislation in Canada. Accessed 10 March 2004. http://www.privcom.gc.ca/fs-fi/02_05_d_15_e.asp
  7. Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, Statutes of Canada 2000, c.5.
  8. Personal Health Information Act, S.M. 1997, c. 51.
  9. Ombudsman Manitoba, Access and Privacy Division. The Personal Health Information Act. Accessed 10 March 2004. http://www.ombudsman.mb.ca/phia.htm.
  10. R.S.Q., chapter A-2.1.
  11. R.S.Q., chapter P-39.1.
  12. Canadian Medical Association. Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association, 1996. Accessed 10 March 2004. http://www.cma.ca/cma/common/displayPage.do?pageId=/staticContent/HTML/N0/l2/where_we_stand/1996/10-15.htm.
  13. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.7, s. 26.
  14. Ontario Regulations 559/91, and amendments under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. 2003.
  15. Pennison v Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, 154 So. 2d 617 (La. Ct. App. 1963), certa. Denied 156 So. 2d 266)
  16. Mikel v Abrahams, 541 F. Supp. 591 (W.D. Mo. 1982)
  17. Curry v. Corn, 277 N.Y.S. 2d 470 )N.Y. Misc. 1977).
  18. Khairzdah v Khairzdah, 464 So. 2d 1311 (La. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
  19. MacDonald vs. Clinger, 446 N.Y.S.2d 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982).
  20. Suter S. Appendix C: Case Law in Mapping Public Policy for Genetic Technologies, 1998. Accessed 10 March 2004. http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/genetics/BOOK/append-c.htm
  21. Diderikx v Cottage Hospital Corp. 393 N.W. 2d 564 (Mich Ct. App. 1986).
  22. Elliott R. After Currier: Canadian Criminal Law and the Non-Disclosure of HIV-Positive Status. Montreal: Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 1999.
  23. Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California (1974), 529 P.2d 533 (Cal. Sup. Ct.); (1976), 551 P. 2d 334 (Cal. Sup. Ct.).
  24. Miller J. Physician-Patient Confidentiality and Familial Access to Genetic Information. Health Law Journal 2:14; 1994.
  25. Tanner v. Norys [1980] 4 W.W.R. 33.
  26. Wenden v Trikha (1991), 116 A.R. 81; aff'd (1993), 14 C.C.L.T. (2d) 225 (Alberta C.A.).
  27. Pittman Estate v. Bain (1994) 112 DLR (4th) 258 Ontario Central Division.
  28. Smith v. Jones, 169 D.L.R. (4th) 385 (S.C.C.), 1999.
  29. Ontario Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c C.11.
  30. Ontario Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c H.8.
  31. The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. C-12.
  32. Pate v. Threlkel, 661 So.2d 278 (Fla. 1995).
  33. Safer v. Pack, 677 A.2d 1188 (N.J. Super. 1996)
  34. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Screening and Counseling for Genetic Conditions. Washington DC: The President's Commission, 1983.
  35. Genetics in Health Care: Report 42. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1992.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.