0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Article |

Informed Consent for Genetic Research FREE

Aaron Hamvas, MD; Katherine K. Madden, RN; Lawrence M. Nogee, MD; Michelle A. Trusgnich, BS; Daniel J. Wegner, BS; Hillary B. Heins, BS; F. Sessions Cole, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

From the Edward Mallinckrodt Department of Pediatrics, Division of Newborn Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine and St Louis Children's Hospital, St Louis, Mo (Drs Hamvas and Cole, Mss Madden, Trusgnich, and Heins, and Mr Wegner); and the Department of Pediatrics, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (Dr Nogee).


Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(6):551-555. doi:10.1001/archpedi.158.6.551.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Rapid technological advances in genetic research and public concern about genetic discrimination have led to anticipatory safeguards in the informed consent process in the absence of legal examples of proven discrimination. Despite federal and state regulations to restrict access to personal health information, including genetic information, institutional review boards have required the addition of language to informed consent documents that warns about the risks of discrimination with participation in genetic research.

Objective  To determine the reasons that families refused consent for their infant's participation in a study evaluating a genetic cause of respiratory distress syndrome.

Design  Survey conducted between February 1, 2002, and March 31, 2003.

Setting  Academic, tertiary free-standing children's hospital.

Participants  A convenience sample of 465 families were approached for consent. The 135 families who refused consent were surveyed.

Main Outcome Measures  Reasons for refusal.

Results  Of the nonconsenting families, 79% spontaneously and specifically identified institutionally required language in our consent form concerning the risk of denial of access to health insurance and employment as the primary reason for refusal; 97% indicated that their fears resulted directly from language in our consent form. Only 20% of families who refused consent cited inadequate time to consider the study.

Conclusions  The institutionally required description of risk of genetic discrimination due solely to participation in genetic research was the primary reason for refusal to consent in this cohort. Information about federally and institutionally mandated protections for confidentiality of participants in genetic research should be included in the informed consent document to balance the description of hypothetical risks and more accurately inform subjects.

Informed consent protects individual autonomy by legally requiring competent subjects or, if incompetent, surrogates to authorize involvement in research or clinical care without coercion and with full disclosure.1,2 The history of medicine provides no examples of requirements for informed consent for research or clinical care prior to the mid 20th century.3 In the United States, beginning in 1914, a series of landmark legal decisions established the right for a competent individual to be the sole decision maker about "what shall be done with his own body"2(pS154) (Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospitals, 105 NE 92 [NY 1914]). Internationally, prompted by unethical human experimentation by German physicians during World War II, personal autonomy, freedom from coercion, freedom to withdraw, and full disclosure of information were formalized as necessary components in research consent in 1947 in the Nuremberg Code and subsequently reaffirmed in the Declaration of Helsinki. In 1979 in the United States, reacting to specific examples of subject abuse in the interest of research, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research issued the Belmont Report, the current conceptual basis for informed consent for research subjects.4 The requirements for protection of research subjects through the informed consent process described in that report were codified into federal policy in the Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR, Part 46 [1983, 1991]) and apply to all federally funded research.

In response to increasing public concern about the privacy of medical information but without specific examples of genetic discrimination or research abuse, which historically initiated similar legislation, the Clinton Health Security Act was passed in 1993 and included a separate section entitled "Privacy of Information."5 This section outlines the basis for the national standards for medical record privacy that were recently implemented in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The HIPAA regulations apply to all medical research, are enforced by the Office for Civil Rights and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and may result in either civil or criminal penalties. In contrast to federal and state legislation concerning informed consent, which responded to specific legal cases or egregious abuses of research subjects from the 1940s through the 1970s, concerns about unregulated access to an individual's genetic information that might lead to discrimination in access to employment or insurance, which prompted HIPAA, were largely hypothetical. Respected physician-scientists who sought to minimize insurance and employment stigmatization associated with genetic testing were among those who voiced these concerns.6,7 In parallel attempts to safeguard individual autonomy, 41 states have enacted legal protections for genetic discrimination.8

Few legal examples of discrimination based on new genetic technology have subsequently been reported. In 2001, using the protections outlined in the Americans for Disabilities Act, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) forbid Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway from testing employees for a deletion of chromosome 17 after they had submitted disability claims for carpal tunnel syndrome (EEOC v Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway).9 In Chevron USA Inc v Echazabal (122 SCt 2045 [2002]), the US Supreme Court, also citing regulations in the Americans for Disabilities Act, upheld an employer's right to make disability-related employment decisions based on risks to an employee's own health, although the control of access to personal health information remained with the employee.10 Despite the scarcity of documented threats, enactment of HIPAA, and state-specific legal protection, the public has continued to voice what Wertz has called "genetic dread."11(p 496),12 A recent report by the Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC) concerning protection of human subjects did not discuss genetic discrimination as a risk to subjects and cited the death of a participant in a gene replacement therapy study as its principal example of the risk of genetic research.13 The Washington University (St Louis, Mo) Human Studies Committee has attempted to react to the public's concern about genetic discrimination by developing a separate informed consent document for participation in genetic research that requires acknowledgement of risks of genetic discrimination in access to employment and insurance similar to those described in HIPAA. Other institutional review boards have taken a similar approach.1418 The availability of data concerning the effect of recently required institutional language on informed consent for genetic research is limited.1921

Genetic research in children is further complicated by surrogate parental decision making based not only on evaluation of risks and benefits for the child but also on the implications of participation for the entire family. We are studying the contribution of genetic variation in the surfactant protein B gene to the risk of respiratory distress syndrome in infants. This study has permitted us to evaluate parents' reasons for refusal to consent. We report that potential loss of employment or insurance due to participation in genetic research, as described in required language in the informed consent document, is the primary reason for refusal to consent for genetic research.

SUBJECT POPULATION

Between February 1, 2002, and March 31, 2003, 465 consecutively eligible families were approached for consent for their infants to participate in a study of genetic risk of respiratory distress syndrome in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and outpatient surgery suite (Table 1).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of Infants of Families Approached for Consent*
CONSENT PROCESS

Before approaching families, we obtained assent from the attending neonatologist, surgeon, and/or anesthesiologist and consulted the nursing staff. Families in the NICU were approached twice during a 24-hour period before a decision to participate was determined. Families in the outpatient surgery suite were approached shortly after arrival and just after their infant went to the operating room. Typically, 1 of us (K.K.M.) first explained the study, which included a single blood sample and airway aspirate obtained at the same time as clinically indicated blood sampling and airway suctioning. Furthermore, we described our legal and ethical obligations and procedures to ensure confidentiality as well as the risks of participation, which included implications for insurability or employment if their involvement in genetic research became known outside the investigative team. The family was also informed that involvement or refusal would not affect the care of their infant, would not offer any direct benefit to their infant, and was completely optional and anonymous. The family was then left with the consent form to review and given an opportunity for private discussion. At a second meeting within 24 hours of initial contact, the same member of the study team answered questions and sought consent. If the families consented to the study (330 [71%] of 465), sample procurement was coordinated with relevant health care professionals. Of the families who refused consent (135 [29%] of 465), more than half spontaneously explained their reasons for refusal without prompting. Those who did not spontaneously share this information, including those who passively declined participation by delaying a decision until the required samples could not be obtained, were asked, "Do you mind telling me the reason(s) you declined participation?" All but 2 families shared their concerns either verbally or by pointing to specific statements in the consent form. No one was prompted for a response. These responses were then placed into 4 categories (Table 2).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Reasons for Declining Consent*

To determine if our experience could be generalized, we sought information about other institutions' consent form language by searching academic institutions whose Web sites allowed outside access to this information (n = 9), through informal discussions with colleagues at other institutions (n = 4), and through a query posted through IRB Forum, a Web site designed for members of research review committees (n = 2) (http://www.irbforum.org, administered through the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, the Joseph Stokes Jr Research Institute, and the Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Pediatric Research Center, Philadelphia, Pa). The Washington University Human Studies Committee approved the study.

DATA ANALYSIS

To compare groups of participants, χ2 or Fisher exact tests were used for categorical variables, and t tests were used for continuous variables.

Clinical and demographic characteristics of families who were approached are described in Table 1. There were no differences in the racial or sex distributions among the families who agreed and those who declined to participate (Table 1), reflecting the ethnic composition of the patients in the St Louis Children's Hospital NICU population as a whole (data not shown). Families of infants with respiratory distress syndrome were significantly more likely to consent than families of control infants (79% vs 54%, respectively; P <.001) (Table 3). Some families actively refused consent (n = 80), and some passively declined by delaying a decision until the required samples could not be obtained during routine clinical care (n = 55). Among the 133 families who declined consent and shared their reasons, 25 (19%) felt that they did not have enough time to consider their involvement in the study. In explaining their reasons for declining to participate, 79% of families (105/133) specifically identified institutionally required language in the consent form regarding the risks of loss of access to health benefits or employment as their primary reason for declining (Table 2). This concern was cited equally by parents whose infants were in the NICU (62/66) and those with infants in the outpatient surgery suite (43/67). In response to the question, "What is the source of your concern?" 97% of nonconsenting families (129/133) directly indicated that the language in the consent form raised their concerns. Institutionally required statements included the following: (1) "An insurance company might consider participation in genetic research in a family study an indication that there is a family history of a genetic condition"; (2) "If your baby's participation in a genetic study becomes known outside of the research (for example, if your baby's participation were noted in her/his medical record), your baby (and family members) may be unable to obtain health, life, or disability insurance"; and (3) "You and/or your baby might also be refused employment or be terminated from your current employment."

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Nonconsent Based on Infant Diagnosis and Location*

The location (NICU vs outpatient surgery suite) where infants were recruited had a significant effect on the rate of consent: 81% of families recruited in the NICU (including all families of controls) consented, whereas only 48 families (41%) recruited from the outpatient surgery suite did (P <.001) (Table 3). Of the 25 families who felt that they did not have adequate time to consider the study, 22 were approached in the outpatient surgery suite. In an attempt to improve participation among the control subjects scheduled for outpatient surgery by increasing the time available for study consideration, 17 families were mailed packets containing the consent form as well as a cover letter that explained the study 7 days before the procedure. The cover letter included the signatures of the attending surgeon and the research team. These families were then approached, as described previously, on the morning of their infant's procedure. None of these families chose to participate.

The language in the consent forms for genetic testing obtained from our informal survey of other academic institutions was variable. All forms included the risks to insurability and employment; however, most had a qualifying statement (eg, "There is a small chance. . . . " or "The effect on insurability or employment is unknown. . . . ") immediately following the mention of these risks.

The social context through which an individual or family views informed consent for genetic research may be determined by many factors, including religion, family preferences, previous experience with research, insurance industry policies, interaction with the research team, and perception of risk of psychological or medical discrimination.13,15,22 Historically, the informed consent process has relied on formal, institutionally governed, and legally defined language requirements in the consent document to preserve individual autonomy and protect the rights of research subjects.22 Recently, institutions have struggled to develop proactive informed consent language that adequately describes the risks and benefits of participation in genetic research. This language has been developed in the context of long-term availability of individual DNA samples, rapid acquisition of new knowledge concerning genotype-phenotype correlation, and technology that increases the capacity for interrogation of an individual's genetic composition. However, it has also been constructed in the absence of specific legal precedent.23,24 The development of language that anticipates new knowledge has been influenced by institutional protectionism against hypothetical liability rather than preservation of individual autonomy, research subject protection, and full disclosure. The ability of this language to facilitate informed consent has recently been questioned.25 Our study suggests that the threats of loss of employment and loss of insurability described in our informed consent document significantly define the social context through which families view consent for genetic research. To our knowledge, these theoretical risks are not supported by any data suggesting that genetic discrimination has ever or is likely to occur merely from participating in a genetic study.11,22,26,27 Because so many nongenetic influences contribute to the risk of disease and most genetic information currently available does not permit the direct assessment of risk, institutionally required alarmist statements tend to perpetuate misconceptions about the current state of genetic technology rather than promote deliberate discussion with families or patients.22,28 We suggest that information about federally and institutionally mandated protections for confidentiality of participants in genetic research should be included in the informed consent document to balance the description of hypothetical risks and more accurately inform subjects.

Our study has several methodological limitations. First, we did not seek to elicit opinions from families concerning all potential contributing factors to their consent decisions; we relied solely on the spontaneous identification of problems by parents. Our data may thus underestimate or exaggerate the significance of required consent form language concerning employment or insurance. Second, the performance of our study in 2 different clinical environments may have blurred important characteristics of the informed consent process (eg, less time was available for discussion and consent document review in the outpatient surgery setting). However, families in both the NICU and outpatient surgery suite pointed to the same language as the cause of their refusal to participate. Third, although we have anecdotal reactions to the consent form language from families who did participate, we did not obtain that information systematically. We can surmise only that they had similar reactions to those who did not participate but felt that the benefits of participation outweighed the risks delineated by the language. Fourth, the considerations that parents take into account in balancing the risks and benefits of participation may be different for their children than for themselves. Finally, as our informal inquiry highlighted, the recommended language for participation in genetic studies varies among institutions. Thus, even if comparable data about rates of consent and reasons for refusal were available, it would be difficult to determine if our experience is nationally representative with respect to other institutions that may or may not have similar language. Despite these limitations, the spontaneous and specific uniformity in responses of nonconsenting families suggests that the currently required language in our informed consent document for genetic research scares rather than informs families. Among families of critically ill infants in this study, the opportunity to benefit other children appeared to outweigh the risk of genetic discrimination described in the consent form.

Although data concerning the effectiveness of HIPAA or other federal and state laws to protect against genetic discrimination are not yet available,15,27,29,30 our experience suggests that the institutionally required language in some informed consent documents for genetic research fails to balance the description of undocumented risk of genetic discrimination with a description of the extraordinary legislative and infrastructural safeguards in place to maintain confidentiality. These unbalanced priorities in current consent form language prompt unfounded fears and could lead to unintended consequences in the validity of genetic studies, which require sufficiently large groups of affected and unaffected subjects to avoid exaggeration or underestimation of allele frequencies due to ethnic stratification, environmental selection, or genotype-phenotype heterogeneity.3133

What This Study Adds

The ability to interrogate the human genome has raised appropriate concerns about the risks to insurability and employment resulting from a breach in confidentiality. The extent to which this risk deters people from participating in genetic research has not been evaluated. To our knowledge, this study is the first to determine that families who choose not to participate in genetic research do so in response to these unquantifiable risks. Understanding the factors that potential subjects consider in determining their participation in genetic research warrants further study and is essential to developing a balanced approach to informed consent.

Corresponding author and reprints: Aaron Hamvas, MD, Division of Newborn Medicine, St Louis Children's Hospital, One Children's Place, St Louis, MO 63110 (e-mail: Hamvas@kids.wustl.edu).

Accepted for publication February 19, 2004.

This study was supported in part by grants HL 65174 FSC, HL 65385 AH, and HL 54703 LMN from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.

This study was presented in abstract form at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, May 4, 2003, Seattle, Wash.

We thank H. R. Colten, MD, W. Schalick, MD, and A. L. Schwartz, PhD, MD, for helpful suggestions.

As of March 15, 2004, the language in the Washington University consent form for participation in genetic research was modified as follows: "You and family members may be unable to get health, life, or disability insurance if the information in this study becomes known. Rarely, you may have problems getting or keeping a job. This could happen if you talk to your doctor about your participation without asking that the information be kept out of your medical record. Having genetic information in your medical record may allow insurance providers to get this information."

Beauchamp  TLChildress  JF Principles of Medical Ethics. 4th ed. New York, NY Oxford Press1994;120- 188
Luce  JM Is the concept of informed consent applicable to clinical research involving critically ill patients? Crit Care Med. 2003;31 (suppl) S153- S160
PubMed Link to Article
Faden  RRBeauchamp  TL A History and Theory of Informed Consent.  New York, NY Oxford University Press1986;53- 150
Burns  JP Research in children. Crit Care Med. 2003;31 (suppl) S131- S136
PubMed Link to Article
Annas  GJ HIPAA regulations: a new era of medical-record privacy? N Engl J Med. 2003;3481486- 1490
PubMed Link to Article
Burke  W Genetic testing. N Engl J Med. 2002;3471867- 1875
PubMed Link to Article
Genetic Testing for Cystic Fibrosis, NIH Consens Statement Online. 1997; April14- 16[cited 2004, March 16];15(4):1-37Available at:http://consensus.nih.gov/cons/106/106_statement.htmAccessed March 16, 2004
National Human Genome Research Institute, Policy and ethics: health insurance and employment discrimination. Available at:http://www.genome.gov/10002347Accessed March 16, 2004
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC settles ADA suit against BNSF for genetic bias.  April18 2001;Available at:http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-18-01.htmlAccessed March 16, 2004
Barnes  MCleaveland  KAFlorencio  PS Chevron v Echazabal: public health issues raised by the "threat-to-self" defense to adverse employment actions. Am J Public Health. 2003;93536- 540
PubMed Link to Article
Wertz  DC Genetic discrimination: an overblown fear? Nat Rev Genet. 2002;3496
PubMed
Lapham  EVKozma  CWeiss  JO Genetic discrimination: perspectives of consumers. Science. 1996;274621- 624
PubMed Link to Article
Federman  DDHanna  KERodriguez  LLeds   Institute of Medicine of the National Academies Report: Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants.  Washington, DC National Academies Press2002;
Maloney  DM IRB duties and genetic testing. Hum Res Rep. 2001;165
PubMed
Burgess  MM Beyond consent: ethical and social issues in genetic testing. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2147- 151
PubMed Link to Article
Reilly  PR Public concern about genetics. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2000;1485- 506
PubMed Link to Article
Annas  GJ Reforming informed consent to genetic research. JAMA. 2001;2862326- 2328
PubMed Link to Article
Shalala  D Protecting research subjects: what must be done. N Engl J Med. 2000;343808- 810
PubMed Link to Article
Annas  GJ The limits of state laws to protect genetic information. N Engl J Med. 2001;345385- 388
PubMed Link to Article
Kulynych  JKorn  D The effect of the new federal medical-privacy rule on research. N Engl J Med. 2002;346201- 214
PubMed Link to Article
Gibson  J Genetic research: conversation across cultures. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000;913218- 228
PubMed Link to Article
Hall  MARich  SS Patients' fear of genetic discrimination by health insurers: the impact of legal protections. Genet Med. 2000;2214- 221
PubMed Link to Article
Wilcox  AJTaylor  JASharp  RRLondon  SJ Genetic determinism and the overprotection of human subjects. Nat Genet. 1999;21362
PubMed Link to Article
Paasche-Orlow  MKTaylor  HABrancati  FL Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med. 2003;348721- 726
PubMed Link to Article
Geller  LNAlper  JSBillings  PRBarash  CIBeckwith  JNatowicz  MR Individual, family, and societal dimensions of genetic discrimination: a case study analysis. Sci Eng Ethics. 1996;271- 88
PubMed Link to Article
Billings  PRKohn  MAde Cuevas  M  et al.  Discrimination as a consequence of genetic testing. Am J Hum Genet. 1992;50476- 482
PubMed
Hall  MARich  SS Laws restricting health insurers' use of genetic information: impact on genetic discrimination. Am J Hum Genet. 2000;66293- 307
PubMed Link to Article
Clayton  EW Ethical, legal, and social implications of genomic medicine. N Engl J Med. 2003;349562- 569
PubMed Link to Article
Nowlan  W A rational view of insurance and genetic discrimination. Science. 2002;297195- 196
PubMed Link to Article
Rothenberg  KHTerry  SF Before it's too late: addressing fear of genetic information. Science. 2002;297196- 197
PubMed Link to Article
Schork  NL Genetics of complex disease-approaches, problems, and solutions. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;156S103- S109
PubMed Link to Article
Wolf  U The genetic contribution to the phenotype. Hum Genet. 1995;95127- 148
PubMed Link to Article
Warden  CHFisler  JS Integrated methods to solve the biological basis of common diseases. Methods. 1997;13347- 357
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of Infants of Families Approached for Consent*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Reasons for Declining Consent*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Nonconsent Based on Infant Diagnosis and Location*

References

Beauchamp  TLChildress  JF Principles of Medical Ethics. 4th ed. New York, NY Oxford Press1994;120- 188
Luce  JM Is the concept of informed consent applicable to clinical research involving critically ill patients? Crit Care Med. 2003;31 (suppl) S153- S160
PubMed Link to Article
Faden  RRBeauchamp  TL A History and Theory of Informed Consent.  New York, NY Oxford University Press1986;53- 150
Burns  JP Research in children. Crit Care Med. 2003;31 (suppl) S131- S136
PubMed Link to Article
Annas  GJ HIPAA regulations: a new era of medical-record privacy? N Engl J Med. 2003;3481486- 1490
PubMed Link to Article
Burke  W Genetic testing. N Engl J Med. 2002;3471867- 1875
PubMed Link to Article
Genetic Testing for Cystic Fibrosis, NIH Consens Statement Online. 1997; April14- 16[cited 2004, March 16];15(4):1-37Available at:http://consensus.nih.gov/cons/106/106_statement.htmAccessed March 16, 2004
National Human Genome Research Institute, Policy and ethics: health insurance and employment discrimination. Available at:http://www.genome.gov/10002347Accessed March 16, 2004
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC settles ADA suit against BNSF for genetic bias.  April18 2001;Available at:http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-18-01.htmlAccessed March 16, 2004
Barnes  MCleaveland  KAFlorencio  PS Chevron v Echazabal: public health issues raised by the "threat-to-self" defense to adverse employment actions. Am J Public Health. 2003;93536- 540
PubMed Link to Article
Wertz  DC Genetic discrimination: an overblown fear? Nat Rev Genet. 2002;3496
PubMed
Lapham  EVKozma  CWeiss  JO Genetic discrimination: perspectives of consumers. Science. 1996;274621- 624
PubMed Link to Article
Federman  DDHanna  KERodriguez  LLeds   Institute of Medicine of the National Academies Report: Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants.  Washington, DC National Academies Press2002;
Maloney  DM IRB duties and genetic testing. Hum Res Rep. 2001;165
PubMed
Burgess  MM Beyond consent: ethical and social issues in genetic testing. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2147- 151
PubMed Link to Article
Reilly  PR Public concern about genetics. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2000;1485- 506
PubMed Link to Article
Annas  GJ Reforming informed consent to genetic research. JAMA. 2001;2862326- 2328
PubMed Link to Article
Shalala  D Protecting research subjects: what must be done. N Engl J Med. 2000;343808- 810
PubMed Link to Article
Annas  GJ The limits of state laws to protect genetic information. N Engl J Med. 2001;345385- 388
PubMed Link to Article
Kulynych  JKorn  D The effect of the new federal medical-privacy rule on research. N Engl J Med. 2002;346201- 214
PubMed Link to Article
Gibson  J Genetic research: conversation across cultures. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000;913218- 228
PubMed Link to Article
Hall  MARich  SS Patients' fear of genetic discrimination by health insurers: the impact of legal protections. Genet Med. 2000;2214- 221
PubMed Link to Article
Wilcox  AJTaylor  JASharp  RRLondon  SJ Genetic determinism and the overprotection of human subjects. Nat Genet. 1999;21362
PubMed Link to Article
Paasche-Orlow  MKTaylor  HABrancati  FL Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med. 2003;348721- 726
PubMed Link to Article
Geller  LNAlper  JSBillings  PRBarash  CIBeckwith  JNatowicz  MR Individual, family, and societal dimensions of genetic discrimination: a case study analysis. Sci Eng Ethics. 1996;271- 88
PubMed Link to Article
Billings  PRKohn  MAde Cuevas  M  et al.  Discrimination as a consequence of genetic testing. Am J Hum Genet. 1992;50476- 482
PubMed
Hall  MARich  SS Laws restricting health insurers' use of genetic information: impact on genetic discrimination. Am J Hum Genet. 2000;66293- 307
PubMed Link to Article
Clayton  EW Ethical, legal, and social implications of genomic medicine. N Engl J Med. 2003;349562- 569
PubMed Link to Article
Nowlan  W A rational view of insurance and genetic discrimination. Science. 2002;297195- 196
PubMed Link to Article
Rothenberg  KHTerry  SF Before it's too late: addressing fear of genetic information. Science. 2002;297196- 197
PubMed Link to Article
Schork  NL Genetics of complex disease-approaches, problems, and solutions. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;156S103- S109
PubMed Link to Article
Wolf  U The genetic contribution to the phenotype. Hum Genet. 1995;95127- 148
PubMed Link to Article
Warden  CHFisler  JS Integrated methods to solve the biological basis of common diseases. Methods. 1997;13347- 357
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 16

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections