Published Online:19 Dec 2012https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.12.110
Abstract
Decision-making dynamics in pediatric research have their foundation in the principle of the ‘best interests of the child’. The introduction of new sequencing technologies and the concomitant debate surrounding the return of research results and incidental findings are, however, challenging the interpretation of this principle. A comparative analysis of international and national approaches to the issue (USA, Canada, France, Spain and the UK) reveals not only the emergence of context-specific pediatric policy in this regard, but one that is ‘personalized’ to the child – that is, what is clinically significant and actionable during childhood.
Keywords:
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: ▪ of interest
References
- 1 International Encyclopaedia for Medical Law. Blanpain R, Colucci M, Nys H (Eds), Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands (2009).
- 2 Council of Europe. The Principle of the Best Interests of the Child: What it Means and What it Demands from Adults. Lecture by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Warsaw, Poland (2008).
- 3 Wolf S, Crock B, Van Ness B, Kahn J, Lawrenz F, Beskow L. Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived datasets. Genet. Med.14(4),361–384 (2012).▪ Outlines ten concrete recommendations on managing incidental findings and research results in biobanks.
- 4 Knoppers BM, Lévesque E. Special Issue: return of research results: how should research results be handled? J. Law Med. Ethics39(4),574–706 (2011).
- 5 Berg JS, Khoury MJ, Evans JP. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet. Med.13(6),499–504 (2011).
- 6 United Nations. Convention on the Rights of the Child. GA res 44/25 of 20 November 1989 (1989).
- 7 Council of Europe. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. Oviedo Convention (1997).
- 8 Council of Europe. Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine on Biomedical Research (2005).
- 9 Council of Europe. Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, concerning Genetic Testing for Health Purposes (2008).
- 10 European Society of Human Genetics. Genetic Testing in Asymptomatic Minors (2009).
- 11 Hens K, Van El CE, Borry P et al. Developing a policy for paediatric biobanks: principles for good practice. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.99 (2012) (Epub ahead of print).
- 12 Avard D, Sénécal K, Madadi P, Sinnett D. Pediatric research and the return of individual research results. J. Law Med. Ethics39(4),593–604 (2011).▪ Presents an overview of the ethical guidelines and relevant literature addressing the return of individual pediatric research results.
- 13 The American Society of Human Genetics Board of Directors, The American College of Medical Genetics Board of Directors. Points to consider: ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. American Society of Human Genetics Board of Directors, American College of Medical Genetics Board of Directors. Am. J. Hum. Genet.57(5),1233–1241 (1995).
- 14 Fabsitz RR, McGuire A, Sharp RR et al. Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Circ. Cardiovasc. Genet.3(6),574–580 (2010).
- 15 Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (2010).
- 16 France. Code de la santé publique (2012).
- 17 France. LOI n° 2012-300 du 5 mars 2012 relative aux recherches impliquant la personne humaine (2012).
- 18 Spain. Law 14/2007 of 3 July 2007 on Biomedical Research (2007).
- 19 Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority. 3 All ER 627 (1985) (CA).
- 20 United Kingdom. Family Law Reform Act c.46 (1969).
- 21 Working Party of the Clinical Genetics Society (UK). The genetic testing of children. J. Med. Genet.31,785–797 (1994).
- 22 Knoppers BM. Paediatric research and the communication of not-so incidental findings. Paediatr. Child Health17(4),190–192 (2012).
- 23 Holm IA, Taylor PL. The informed cohort oversight board: from values to architecture. Minn. J. L. Sci. Tech.13(2),669–690 (2012).
- 24 Kohane IS, Taylor PL. Multidimensional results reporting to participants in genomic studies: getting it right. Sci. Trans. Med.2(37),37cm19 (2010).
- 25 Thorogood A, Knoppers BM, Dondorp WJ, de Wert GM. Whole genome sequencing and the physician. Clin. Genet.81(6),511–513 (2012).
- 26 Watters v White. QCCA 257 (2012) (CA).
- 27 Knoppers BM, Deschênes M, Zawati MH, Tassé AM. Population studies: return of research results and incidental findings Policy Statement. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.152 (2012) (Epub ahead of print).
- 101 Centre of Genomics and Policy. Pediagen (2012). www.pediagen.org
- 102 HumGen International Database. www.humgen.org
- 103 British Society for Human Genetics: Report on the Genetic Testing of Children (2010). www.bshg.org.uk/GTOC_Booklet_Final_new.pdf
- 104 PHG Foundation: Next steps in the sequence. The implications of whole genome sequencing for health in the UK (2011). http://www.phgfoundation.org/reports/10364
- 105 British Medical Association. Children and young people tool kit (2010). http://bma.org.uk/practical-support-at-work/ethics/children/children-and-young-people-tool-kit
- 106 Canadian Pediatric Genetic Disorders Sequencing Consortium. FORGE – Canada Consortium (2010). www.cpgdsconsortium.com
- 107 International Pediatric Biobank Research Platform. www.p3g.org/news/international-pediatric-biobank-research-programme
