↓ Skip to main content

Direct-to-consumer online genetic testing and the four principles: an analysis of the ethical issues.

Overview of attention for article published in Ethics & Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics, January 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Direct-to-consumer online genetic testing and the four principles: an analysis of the ethical issues.
Published in
Ethics & Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics, January 2006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine Wasson, E David Cook, Kathy Helzlsouer

Abstract

The development of genetic tests marketed and sold direct-to-consumers (DTC) via the internet raises moral concerns and debate about their appropriateness and ethical and clinical significance. These tests are offered for a wide range of diseases and conditions, and the mutations have variable penetrance and associated risk. A number of these tests lack data on their accuracy and reliability, making interpretation of results difficult. DTC genetic testing is undertaken outside the context of the physician-patient relationship and may lack appropriate individual and family genetic counseling, leaving the consumer vulnerable to potential harms, such as misinterpretation of results, including false positive or false reassurance, with limited or no benefits. Beauchamp and Childress's four principles of biomedical ethics provide a framework for analyzing the ethical issues raised by DTC genetic testing. We argue that the potential harms outweigh the potential benefits of such tests, that respect for autonomy should be limited in light of potential harm from DTC testing, and that the availability of genetic testing over the internet may be considered unfair and unjust and affect resource allocation by placing an unfair burden on primary care physicians. In light of the moral issues posed by these tests, practical responses are suggested in the areas of consumer education, medical education, and interaction with commercial companies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 50 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 21%
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 November 2017.
All research outputs
#4,152,404
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Ethics & Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics
#1
of 4 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,145
of 174,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ethics & Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one scored the same or higher as 3 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 174,012 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them