Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Pate v. Threlkel”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

14 recordsLinked to original sources

Inherited medullary thyroid cancer and the duty to warn: revisiting Pate v. Threlkel in light of HIPAA.

Familial medullary thyroid cancer (FMTC) is one of the few autosomal dominant cancers for which genetic testing provides a clear medical indication for prophylactic and/or curative therapy, and for which prophylactic thyroidectomy, followed by thyroid hormone replacement, presents a relatively low morbidity risk. Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) is a particularly aggressive type of thyroid cancer, and screening by traditional biochemical markers yields a high proportion of advanced stage diagnoses in individuals from FMTC families. This is particularly hazardous since there are no curative systemic treatments for MTC. Genetic testing for germline mutations of the RET proto-oncogene provides a reliable method of identifying at-risk family members in those FMTC families in which a mutation has been identified in the proband. Prophylactic thyroidectomy in such at-risk family members has significantly reduced the proportion of advanced stage MTC diagnoses in MTC families. Since a clear medical benefit exists for genetic testing in family members, and a clear danger to family members exists in the absence of genetic counseling, establishing genetic diagnosis as standard of care has critical legal and ethical implications for medical providers caring for probands and family members. The "duty to warn," reinforced by the courts in the legal case of Pate v. Threlkel, may override recent confidentiality legislation, known as the HIPAA Privacy Rules, which came into effect April 12, 2003.

Carcinoma, Medullary↗

Pate v. Threlkel.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Adult Children↗

Pate v. Threlkel.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Adult Children↗

The Human Genome Project and the clinician.

The Florida Supreme Court's decision in Pate v Threlkel is an early warning sing of the massive impact human genome research will have on medical practice. Genetic screening is a scientific tool whose widespread use in clinical medicine will expand due to the combined influences of the federally funded Human Genome Project, biotechnology market forces, and corporate and societal pressures to both use and further develop the technique. Once testing becomes cost-effective, clinicians, by virtue of their position as "knowledgeable professionals" and as the primary source of health information for patients with genetic disorders, will be required to act as gatekeepers to the genetic heritage of their patients. This will seriously impact the legal definitions of reasonable care, a physician's duty to warn, the concept of informed consent, and the confidentiality of medical records.

Biotechnology↗

Disclosing genetic information to family members. Do old paradigms fit the new medicine?

Launched in 1990, the Human Genome Project (HGP), an ambitious, international, federally funded project to map and sequence all human genes, has rapidly expanded our genetic knowledge. Not only does the HGP promise to arm physicians with impressive diagnostic tools, its ultimate target is radical improvement in therapeutic and preventive interventions in a new era of genetic medicine. At the same time, however, the genetic revolution poses momentous ethical, legal, and social questions. During the past decade, a substantial--and unresolved--discourse has emerged about such matters as genetic privacy, genetic discrimination, research with stored tissue samples, ownership of genetic material and information, gene patenting, and the genomic challenge to time-honored concepts of health and disease.

Duty to Warn↗