View in EDS

Attitudes Towards Non-directiveness Among Medical Geneticists in Germany and Switzerland

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Attitudes Towards Non-directiveness Among Medical Geneticists in Germany and Switzerland
Authors: J. Eichinger, B. S. Elger, S. McLennan, I. Filges, I. Koné
Source: J Bioeth Inq
Journal of bioethical inquiry, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 711-722
Publisher Information: Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2024.
Publication Year: 2024
Subject Terms: Male, Adult, 0301 basic medicine, Attitude of Health Personnel, Genetics, Medical, Beneficence, Genetic Counseling, Middle Aged, ddc, 3. Good health, Original Research, Medical ethics, Clinical decision-making, Genetic counseling, Personal autonomy, Directive counseling, Decision making, Shared, Physician-patient relations, Patient-centered care, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, Germany, Personal Autonomy, Humans, Switzerland, Genetic Counseling/ethics, Qualitative Research, Genetics, Medical/ethics, Genetic Testing/ethics, Female, Physician–patient relations, Genetic Testing
Description: The principle of non-directiveness remains an important tenet in genetics. However, the concept has encountered growing criticism over the last two decades. There is an ongoing discussion about its appropriateness for specific situations in genetics, especially in light of recent significant advancements in genetic medicine. Despite the debate surrounding non-directiveness, there is a notable lack of up-to-date international research empirically investigating the issue from the perspective of those who actually do genetic counselling. Addressing this gap, our article delves into the viewpoints and experiences of medical geneticists in Germany and Switzerland. Twenty qualitative interviews were analysed employing reflexive thematic analysis. Participants’ responses revealed substantial uncertainties and divergences in their understanding and application of the concept. It seems to cause distress since many geneticists stated that the principle was difficult to put into clinical practice and was no longer ethically justified given the increasing likelihood of therapeutic implications resulting from genomic testing outcomes. The insights provided by our qualitative empirical study accord with the ongoing theoretical debate regarding the definition, legitimacy, and feasibility of the principle. An adequately nuanced understanding and application of non-directiveness seems crucial to circumvent the risks inherent in the principle, while promoting patient autonomy and beneficence.
Document Type: Article
Other literature type
File Description: application/pdf
Language: English
ISSN: 1872-4353
1176-7529
DOI: 10.1007/s11673-024-10355-x
Access URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39037641
https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_20EFA8E4A438.P001/REF.pdf
https://serval.unil.ch/notice/serval:BIB_20EFA8E4A438
http://nbn-resolving.org/urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn:nbn:ch:serval-BIB_20EFA8E4A4382
https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/1792072
Rights: CC BY
Accession Number: edsair.doi.dedup.....7ddde0f6b36d782deb3be1a693abcba0
Database: OpenAIRE
Description
Abstract:The principle of non-directiveness remains an important tenet in genetics. However, the concept has encountered growing criticism over the last two decades. There is an ongoing discussion about its appropriateness for specific situations in genetics, especially in light of recent significant advancements in genetic medicine. Despite the debate surrounding non-directiveness, there is a notable lack of up-to-date international research empirically investigating the issue from the perspective of those who actually do genetic counselling. Addressing this gap, our article delves into the viewpoints and experiences of medical geneticists in Germany and Switzerland. Twenty qualitative interviews were analysed employing reflexive thematic analysis. Participants’ responses revealed substantial uncertainties and divergences in their understanding and application of the concept. It seems to cause distress since many geneticists stated that the principle was difficult to put into clinical practice and was no longer ethically justified given the increasing likelihood of therapeutic implications resulting from genomic testing outcomes. The insights provided by our qualitative empirical study accord with the ongoing theoretical debate regarding the definition, legitimacy, and feasibility of the principle. An adequately nuanced understanding and application of non-directiveness seems crucial to circumvent the risks inherent in the principle, while promoting patient autonomy and beneficence.
ISSN:18724353
11767529
DOI:10.1007/s11673-024-10355-x