Two judicial precedents, raised in the United States pertaining to the warning duty of the physicians of those known to be at risk of genetic disorders, were presented and studied.
The Supreme Court of Florida held that: (1) if, as alleged, physicians had duty to warn of genetically transferable nature of condition, duty ran to patient's children despite lack of privity, and (2) such duty would be discharged by warning patient, and it would not be necessary for physicians to warn children.
On the other hand, Superior Court of New Jersey held that: (1) physician has duty to warn those known to be at risk of avoidable harm genetically transmissible conditions, and (2) physician's duty extends to members of immediate family of patient who may be adversely affected by breach of duty.
Considering the particularity with which a genetic code involves, the range and limitation of warning duty of a physician toward persons with the risk of genetic disorders is to be clarified, in light of the problems detailed below, form a legal standpoint as well as an occupationally ethical standpoint.
1. Should a physician's warning duty include informing others known to be at a risk?
2. Should a physician be allowed to breach the confidentiality between himself and his patient, regarding the patient's condition, in the case where the physician seeks to warn those known to be genetically at a risk?
3. Due to the nature of the confidential information exchanged between the patient and his physician, is it necessary for a physician to obtain consent directly from his patient when he wants to warn others known to be at risk? Or is it the patient's duty to do the warning?
View full abstract
