The prediction of disease risk in genomic medicine

In recent years, the phrase 'genomic medicine' has increasingly been used to describe a new development in medicine that holds great promise for human health. This new approach to health care uses the knowledge of an individual's genetic make-up to identify those that are at a higher risk of developing certain diseases and to intervene at an earlier stage to prevent these diseases. Identifying genes that are involved in disease aetiology will provide researchers with tools to develop better treatments and cures. A major role within this field is attributed to 'predictive genomic medicine', which proposes screening healthy individuals to identify those who carry alleles that increase their susceptibility to common diseases, such as cancers and heart disease. Physicians could then intervene even before the disease manifests and advise individuals with a higher genetic risk to change their behaviour - for instance, to exercise or to eat a healthier diet - or offer drugs or other medical treatment to reduce their chances of developing these diseases. These promises have fallen on fertile ground among politicians, health-care providers and the general public, particularly in light of the increasing costs of health care in developed societies. Various countries have established databases on the DNA and health information of whole populations as a first step towards genomic medicine. Biomedical research has also identified a large number of genes that could be used to predict someone's risk of developing a certain disorder. But it would be premature to assume that genomic medicine will soon become reality, as many problems remain to be solved. Our knowledge about most disease genes and their roles is far from sufficient to make reliable predictions about a patient’s risk of actually developing a disease. In addition, genomic medicine will create new political, social, ethical and economic challenges that will have to be addressed in the near future.

Ethical issues in neuroscience research on substance dependence treatment and prevention

Previous chapters have presented the latest findings in neuroscience research, and have pointed to potential treatment and prevention strategies. However, there are many ethical implications of the research itself, as well as the treatment and prevention strategies, that must be considered. The rapid pace of change in the field of neuroscience brings with it a host of new ethical issues, which need to be addressed. This chapter considers the important ethical and human rights issues that are raised by neuroscience research on psychoactive substance dependence.

Refusal of treatment

Patients' thoughts, feelings and desires are communicated in a variety of ways, and require sympathetic, critical interpretation. Patients need clear, evidence-based medical information so that they can make their own decisions about whether to consent to or refuse medical treatment. Treatment refusal may provide an opportunity to introduce patients to advance care planning. Unconscious motivations in doctors may obstruct good clinical decision-making. Although respect for the patient's responsibility to make healthcare decisions should be a condition of the clinical relationship, healthcare decision-making is a collaborative process.

The role of the church in developing the law

The church and other community organisations have a legitimate role to play in influencing public policy. However, intervention by the church and other religious bodies in recent litigation in Australia and the United Kingdom raises questions about the appropriateness of such bodies being permitted to intervene directly in the court process as amici curiae. We argue that there are dangers in such bodies insinuating their doctrine under the guise of legal argument in civil proceedings, but find it difficult to enunciate a principled distinction between doctrine and legal argument. We advise that judges should exercise caution in dealing with amicus submissions.

Eugenics or empowered choice? Community issues arising from prenatal testing

The prevention of inherited disabilities is viewed in two contrasting ways – either as enhancing reproductive choice and improving population health, or as discriminating against disabled community members. We argue that modern clinical genetics, including preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), reflects a persistent and defensible desire by the community to prevent disability, rather than as increasing discrimination or threatening to produce a 'new eugenic' society. Screening should be presented as a distinct issue for decision-making about the prevention or acceptance of disability, rather than as a routinely accepted component of antenatal care. The community must improve its understanding of the experiences of those who manage disability, and continue to debate the issues of discrimination, selective genetic prevention and enhancement, reproductive freedom, and eugenics.