The Scope of the Principle of Autonomy in Genetic Testing

  • Sanja N Stojkovic Zlatanovic Institut društvenih nauka, Beograd
Keywords: principle of autonomy, genetic testing, right to privacy, case law of the European Court of Human Rights

Abstract


The paper aims to define the bioethical principle of the autonomy of the will in the conceptual-theoretical sense, and points to its legal significance. The basic legal derivatives of the principle of autonomy are identified, determinated as specialized patients rights, ie. the right to self-determination, the right to informed consent, and the right to privacy and confidentiality of health status information. This, in particular, in the context of conducting genetic testing, bearing in mind the specificities of genetic testing as a diagnostic measure. Genetic testing provides information on both, the current and future health status of an individual and their family members as well. Determining the scope of application of the principle of autonomy in the context of genetic testing has been defined as a basic research question that will be considered from contemporary theoretical points of view, but also through an analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

Author Biography

Sanja N Stojkovic Zlatanovic, Institut društvenih nauka, Beograd

Centar za pravna istraživanja

Naučni saradnik

References

Blightman, К., Griffiths, SЕ., Danbury Mphil, C. (2014). Patient confidentiality: when can a breach be justified?. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain 14:2

Varelius, Ј. (2006). The value of autonomy in medical ethics. Medicine. Health Care and Philosophy 9

Gillon, R. (1994). Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope. British Medical Journal 309


Moskop, J.C., et al. (2005). From Hippocrates to HIPAA: Privacy and Confidentialityin Emergency Medicined Part I: Conceptual, Moral, and Legal Foundations, Annals of Emergency Medicine 45(1)

Mujović-Zornić, H. (2010). Pojam i razvoj pacijentovih prava. H. Mujović-Zornić (pr.). Pacijentova prava u sistemu zdravstva. Beograd: Institut društvenih nauka, Centar za pravna istraživanja

Murgic, L., Hébert, Ph., Sovic, S., Pavlekovic, G. (2015). Paternalism and autonomy: views of patients and providers in a transitional (post-communist) country. BMC Medical Ethics 16:(65)

McPherson, Е. (2006). Genetic Diagnosis and Testing in Clinical Practice. Clinical Medicine & Research 4(2)

Pellegrino, E. D. (1994). Patient and Physician Autonomy: Conflicting Rights and Obligations in the Physician-Patient Relationship. Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy 10(1)

Радишић, Ј. (2008). Медицинско право. Београд: Номос

Riba, S. C. (2007). The Use of Genetic Information in Health Insurance: Who will be helped, who will be harmed and possible Long-term Effects?. Review of Law and Social Justice 16:2

Rindfleisch, T.C. (1997). Confidentiality, Informational Technology, and Health Care. Communications of the ACM 40:8

Rodrigues de Almeida, Е. H. (2010). Dignity, patient’s autonomy and mental illness. Revista Bioética 18 (2)

Rothstein, M.A. (2001). Genetic Privacy and Confidentiality: Why They Are So Hard to Protect. In: B.B. Longest Jr. (ed.). Contemporary Health Policy. Chicago-Washington: Health Administration Press and AUPHA Press

Стојковић Златановић, С. (2019). Генетички и други здравствени основи дискриминације на раду. Београд: Институт друштвених наука

Tamir, S. (2010). Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing: Ethical-Legal Perspectives and Practical Considerations. Medical Law Review 18

Florencio, P. S. Ramanathan, E.D. (2001). Secret Code: The Need for Enhanced Privacy Protections in the United States and Canada to Prevent Employment Discrimination based on Genetic and Health Information. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 39(1)


Chima, S. (2009). Respect for Autonomy as a Prima Facie Right: Overriding Patients’ Autonomy In Medical Practice. Transactions 53(1)

Шундерић, Б. (2009). Социјално право. Београд: Правни факултет Универзитета у Београду

Судска пракса

Mifsud v. Malta, (App. no. 62257/15), 29.4.2019.

R.S. v. Hungary, (App. no. 65290/14), 2.7. 2019.
Published
2020/08/31
Section
Pregledni rad