Questions Posed by the Use of Genetic Information for Personalized Medicine Achievements and Promises

Article English OPEN
Goulielmos, GN ; Zervou, MI ; Burska, A ; Ponchel, F (2016)
  • Publisher: OMICS International

Personalised medicine (PM) has the potential to increase therapeutic effectiveness, reduce side effects and lower cost. The identification of biomarkers predictive of the clinical response to specific treatments in subsets of patients became reality for a variety of diseases. However, a better understanding of the benefits and limitations needs to be developed at the level of the general public as well as at the level of an individual patient. The upcoming ability to characterize each patient from the genetic point of view in a comprehensive manner is believed to have the potential to transform medicine, thus enabling accurate prognosis as well as a treatment outcome prediction. However, PM holds both promise and cause for concern. Although PM promises that an individual’s genetic information may be increasingly used to prioritize medical decision making, it raises in parallel fears and questions as to whether such use could be inequitable. Thus, there are many thoughts whether the use of individual genetic information in the delivery of health care can be a cause for concern, as it may lead to genetic discrimination and other problems such as with employers and private insurance companies. Finally, the main pitfall of predictive tests for complex disease remains the putative lack of proven medical benefit. A better understanding of the benefits PM will have to be developed at the level of the general public as well as at the level of an individual patient; which will also reassure people that their genetic data is used appropriately to choose therapeutic protocols and drugs.
  • References (16)
    16 references, page 1 of 2

    1. Hudson KL, Rothenberg KH, Andrews LB, Kahn MJ, Collins FS (1995) Genetic discrimination and health insurance: an urgent need for reform. Science 270: 391-393.

    2. McClellan KA, Avard D, Simard J, Knoppers BM (2013) Personalized medicine and access to health care: potential for inequitable access? Eur J Hum Genet 21: 143-147.

    3. Calvo C, Johnson A (2001) (eds.) Genetics policy report: insurance issues. Washington DC: National Conference of State Legislatures.

    4. Peterson EW, Finlayson M, Elliott SJ, Painter JA, Clemson L (2012) Unprecedented opportunities in fall prevention for occupational therapy practitioners. Am J Occup Ther 66: 127-130.

    5. Lapham EV, Kozma C, Weiss JO (1996) Genetic discrimination: perspectives of consumers. Science 274: 621-624.

    6. Clayton EW (2003) Ethical, legal, and social implications of genomic medicine. N Engl J Med 349: 562-569.

    7. Durnin M, Hoy M, Ruse M (2012) Genetic testing and insurance: The complexity of adverse selection. Ethical Perspectives 19: 123-154.

    8. Lander J, Van Hoyweghen I (2014) Streitkultur and the governance of genetic testing and insurance in Germany. New Genetics and Society 33: 42-59.

    9. Pokorski RJ (1997) Insurance underwriting in the genetic era. Am J Hum Genet 60: 205-216.

    10. Council of Europe: Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, concerning Genetic Testing for Health Purposes 2008.

  • Metrics
    0
    views in OpenAIRE
    0
    views in local repository
    8
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    White Rose Research Online - IRUS-UK 0 8
Share - Bookmark