AMA Opinion Summary

Summary of AMA Opinion 2.131 - Disclosure of Familial Risk in Genetic Testing:
*Note – where words or phrases are in quotation marks, this means I took the phrase or passage verbatim. The original document can be found at http://goo.gl/IQkisp

This opinion has four elements that discuss a physician’s duty in regard to genetic testing and informing others that could possibly be affected by the findings while recognizing the physician’s ethical duty to protect patient privacy (first element).

Element two covers the role of the advising physician prior to testing and after testing to consult with clients about the “implications” of the information on biological family members and whether the patient should notify the blood relatives or have

However, this statement (more in-depth than the previous AMA opinion) references Safer v. Estate of Pack and Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976) as background for the duty to warn but leaves out any mention of Molloy v. Meier which I believe is a stronger and more direct case addressing actual genetic information and confidentiality.

It is of note however that the statement is long and delves as deep as international law and does well to have a discussion on how genetic medicine is both “individual and familial” which can create confidentiality conflicts but recognizes that statutory and court made protections have evolved to create a protective layer for a physician or genetic

I will not go into summarizing every element but will select a few to stay within the scope of this writing. The first two elements of the policy advocate genetic testing by persons qualified to do so especially on adults where a family history or other concern gives rise and early genetic screening can aid in being watchful for a cancer or a preemptive procedure like surgery could be helpful.

The second concerns children and the need to allow parents discretion, but when a genetic screening for cancer is not beneficial to know, to allow the child to make their own decision after reaching an age to do so. In this paragraph, I would be wary of this advice in light of Molloy v. Meier where the court took a broader opinion that genetic testing should be performed in order to notify family members and even to make informed decisions of whether to continue having children. This is especially true for physicians in Minnesota to include the famed Mayo