Visit our website
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
MIT Technology Review
MIT Technology Review
io9
io9
Techdirt
Techdirt
Knowledge@Wharton
Knowledge@Wharton
Bioscience Technology
Bioscience Technology
redOrbit
redOrbit
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Popular Science Blog
Popular Science Blog
Pew Research Center
Pew Research Center
Genomics Law Report
Genomics Law Report
Science 2.0
Science 2.0
The Guardian Headquarters
The Guardian Headquarters
Genetic Literacy Project
Genetic Literacy Project
Disclaimer

Statements posted on this blog represent the views of individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Center for Law Science & Innovation (which does not take positions on policy issues) or of the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law or Arizona State University.

Marchant Quoted in Science Magazine on Gene Testing

Faculty Director Gary Marchant was recently quoted in “Science Magazine” discussing the gene testing surges and lawsuits that are trailing behind. Marchant is part of a 3-year project called LawSeq, which aims to help build legal guidelines to support genomic medicine. Those in healthcare are already facing lawsuits that are new territory legally, and are at the risk of being held liable for how they handle genetic testing.

For a long time, the legal and medical standard of care coincided to simultaneously care for the patients while also protecting the doctors from lawsuits. But the new genomic technology is changing at a rapid pace, creating unclear medical standards. Doctors are seeing this issue happen a lot with variant assessments and how these variants play into determining if a patient has an increased risk for heart disease or breast cancer.

One notable case came up after the death of a 16-year-old in Pennsylvania in 2010. The teenager died of a hypertrophic cardiomyopathy 2 years after his father had had an electrocardiogram during a medical check-up. In the lawsuit, the family of the boy contended that the EKG results should have raised alarms and doctors should have done genetic testing on the father which would have led to testing on his son. Despite not having treated the teenager, the family suggested that the doctor had a legal duty to the teenager. In 2015, a judge agreed and the family won the lawsuit. Marchant believes that this case can now be used as a reference point in future cases, and shows the expansion on a physician’s responsibility.

With the growing understanding of genes, another issue has come to light, what happens when the understanding of a variant changes after the initial testing? A DNA change written off as an unknown significance can later be found to raise the risk of ovarian cancer. But finding the person with that variant could pose a challenge.

Check out the article here.

Share on facebook
Share on email
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin