Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:17:08.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Currents in Contemporary Bioethics

Identifying Consanguinity through Routine Genomic Analysis: Reporting Requirements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Amy L. McGuire ,
Melody J. Wang  and
Frank J. Probst
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Increasingly, genomic analysis is being utilized to diagnose children with developmental delay or dysmorphic facial features suggestive of a congenital disorder. Genetic testing has rapidly evolved, and the genome-wide tests that we use today are significantly different from the more targeted single-gene tests of the last decade. Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) is now a first line test for children with multiple birth defects, children with intellectual impairment (including autism), and children with an unusual constellation of symptoms that do not fit with a known disease. There are three types of CMA that are currently clinically available. CMA by oligonucleotide array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) compares the hybridization signal from the patient's DNA to that of a reference DNA sample for each oligonucleotide on the array. Depending on the specific array, this can range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of oligonucleotides.

Type
JLME Column
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , Winter 2012 , pp. 1040 - 1046
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Manning, M. Hudgins, L., and Professional Practice and Guidelines Committee, “Array-Based Technology and Recommendations for Utilization in Medical Genetics Practice for Detection of Chromosomal Abnormalities,” Genetics in Medicine 12, no. 11 (2010): 742–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boone, P. M. et al., “Detection of Clinically Relevant Exonic Copy-Number Changes by Array CGH,” Human Mutation 31, no. 12 (2010): 1326–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, A. Holzmann, K., and Kestler, H. A., “Visualization of Genomic Aberrations using Affymetrix SNP Arrays,” Bioinformatics 23, no. 4 (2007): 496–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conlin, L. K. Thiel, B. D., and Bonnemann, C. G. et al., “Mechanisms of Mosaicism, Chimerism and Uniparental Disomy Identified by Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Array Analysis,” Human Molecular Genetics 19, no. 4 (2010): 1263–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaaf, C. P. Scott, D.A. Wiszniewska, J. Beaudet, A., “Identification of Incestuous Parental Relationships by SNP-Based DNA Microarrays,” The Lancet 377, no. 9765 (2011): 555–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures, “Genetic Privacy Laws,” 2007, available at <http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/GeneticPrivacyLaws/tabid/14287/Default.aspx> (last visited December 11, 2012); Wang, M. J., Genetic Testing – Specific Informed Consent (March 20, 2012) (unpublished research, on file with Baylor College of Medicine).+(last+visited+December+11,+2012);+Wang,+M.+J.,+Genetic+Testing+–+Specific+Informed+Consent+(March+20,+2012)+(unpublished+research,+on+file+with+Baylor+College+of+Medicine).>Google Scholar
See Wang, , supra note 6.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Wilfond, B. and Ross, L. F., “From Genetics to Genomics: Ethics, Policy, and Parental Decision-Making,” Journal of Pediatric Psychology 34, no. 6(2009): 639–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Oath, by Hippocrates, written 400 BCE, translated by Adams, Francis, available at <http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/hippooath.html> (last visited December 11, 2012).+(last+visited+December+11,+2012).>Google Scholar
American Medical Association, “Code of Medical Ethics, Opinion 5.05,” available at <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics.page> (last visited December 11, 2012).+(last+visited+December+11,+2012).>Google Scholar
Collin, J. M. Leib, E. J., and Markel, D., “Punishing Family Status,” Boston University Law Review 88, no. 5 (2008): 1327–1423.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 67 (2003).Google Scholar
Wang, M. J., Child Abuse Reporting Requirements (August 3, 2012) (unpublished research, on file with Baylor College of Medicine).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
TX. Fam. Code § 261.001.Google Scholar
See Wang, , supra note 15.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, “Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect: Summary of State Laws,” 2008, available at <http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/manda.cfm> (last visited December 11, 2012); National Conference of State Legislatures, Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse and Neglect: 2012 Introduced State Legislation, 2012, available at <http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/2012-child-abuse-mandatory-reporting-bills.aspx> (last visited December 11, 2012).+(last+visited+December+11,+2012);+National+Conference+of+State+Legislatures,+Mandatory+Reporting+of+Child+Abuse+and+Neglect:+2012+Introduced+State+Legislation,+2012,+available+at++(last+visited+December+11,+2012).>Google Scholar
Id. (U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services).Google Scholar
Id. New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, and West Virginia do not recognize the clergy-penitent privilege as adequate grounds for failing to report suspected child abuse.Google Scholar
See Wang, , supra note 15.Google Scholar
DC. Ann. Code § 16–2301Google Scholar
ME. Ann. Stat. Tit. 22 § 4002Google Scholar
MA. Code of Mass. Regs. Tit. 110, § 2.00Google Scholar
MO. Ann. Stat. § 210.110Google Scholar
OH. Rev. Stat. §§ 2151.031.Google Scholar
Id.; These states are: Alabama, AL. Ala. Code § 26-14-1(1)-3., Arizona, AZ. A.R.S. § 13–3620., California, CA. West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 11165.9 (2011), Welf. & Inst. Code § 300., Hawaii, HI. Rev. Stat. § 350–1., Idaho, ID. Idaho Code § 16–1602., Indiana, IN. Ann. Code § 31-34-1-3., Maryland, MD. Fam. Law § 5–701., Mississippi, MS. Ann. Code § 43-21-105., Montana, MT Ann. Code § 41-3-102., Nevada, NV. Rev. Stat. §§ 432B.100., New Hampshire, NH. Rev. Stat. § 169-C:3., New Mexico, NM. Ann. Stat. § 32A-4-2., North Carolina, NC. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101., Oklahoma, OK. Ann. Stat. Tit. 10A, § 1-1-105., Oregon, OR. Rev. Stat. §41B.005., Pennsylvania, PA. Cons. Stat. Tit. 23 § 6303. Tennessee, TN. Ann. Code § 37-1-602., Utah, UT. Ann. Code § 78A-6-1051., and Vermont, VT. Ann. Stat. Tit. 33 § 4912.Google Scholar
HI. Rev. Stat. § 350–1.Google Scholar
See Wang, , supra note 15.Google Scholar
The District of Columbia allows 10 years from when the victim turns 21 years old, DC. Ann. Code § 16–2301; Georgia's limitation is seven years from the earlier of the victim turning 16 years old or discovery GA. Ann. Code § 19-7-5(b); Iowa allows 10 years from when the victim turns 18 IA. Ann. Stat. § 232.68; and Utah has a eight year grace period if reported within four years of the offense UT. Ann. Code § 78A-6-105.Google Scholar
In Georgia, the time period of prosecution for incest of a victim less than 16 years old does not begin to run until the earlier of when the victim reaches 16 or reports the crime GA. Ann. Code § 19-7-5(b); Indiana allows for prosecution up until the victim is 31 years old, IN. Ann. Code § 31-34-1-3.Google Scholar
See Wang, , supra note 15. The states that allow for a DNA evidence exception are: Georgia, GA. Ann. Code § 19-7-5(b), Michigan, MI. Comp. Laws § 722.622, Minnesota, MN. Ann. Stat. § 626.556, Subd. 2, Montana, MT. Ann. Code § 41-3-102, Oklahoma, OK. Ann. Stat. Tit. 10A, § 1-1-105, Pennsylvania, PA. Cons. Stat. Tit. 23 § 6303, and Utah, UT. Ann. Code § 78A-6-1051.Google Scholar
Kohane, I. S. Masys, D. R., and Altman, R. B., “The Incidentalome: A Threat to Genomic Medicine,” JAMA 296, no. 2 (2006): 212–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar