duty to warn
Recently Published Documents

Richard Griffith, Head of Health Law and Ethics in the School of Health and Social Care at Swansea University, looks at the law around negligence for disabilities in a child caused by a failure to warn of preconception risks

This chapter examines state and federal laws in the United States that govern legal and ethical issues concerning genetic and genomic analysis for diagnostic purposes; regulation of genetic testing, genetic discrimination, and privacy; and clinical applications of genomics. At the state level, legislatures have enacted laws in various areas, including newborn screening and nondiscrimination and privacy protections. In addition, state courts have addressed some issues concerning genetics, such as the duty to warn. At the federal level, the US Congress has enacted a specific statute, the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act, which protects genetic information. Other federal statutes, which do not address genetics or genomics in particular, also have relevance in the genetics context, including laws that protect against certain forms of discrimination or that regulate laboratories. Federal agencies also play a role, for example, in protecting genetic privacy or regulating genetic tests. Finally, the US Constitution is relevant to genomics, especially concerning reproductive rights, which are pertinent to reproductive genetic testing.

Genetic testing raises a number of legal issues. Physicians providing genetic testing may be faced with questions related to privacy, confidentiality, and the duty to warn. Because genetic information is by its very nature familial, genetic test results may have implications for others not privy to the particular physician-patient relationship. This can result in a legal and ethical quandary for the treating physician. This paper addresses questions with respect to genetic testing and the legal obligations of physicians. First, can a physician legally breach doctor-patient confidentiality to inform a family member of a genetic risk? Second, does the physician have a duty to warn the interested third party of that risk? And if the physician fails to warn that party, could s/he be found liable? These questions are addressed here in a comparative fashion, examining Canadian (and, where appropriate, American) common law as well as Quebec civil law. The paper concludes that physicians should be liable for the duty to warn in the context of genetic information only when the risk is serious, imminent, and avoidable.

Sometimes, while meditating on these things in solitude, I’ve got up in a sudden terror, and put on my bonnet to go see how all was at the farm; I’ve persuaded my conscience that it was a duty to warn him how people talked...

This article presents three medical-legal cases that define a physician’s duty to warn and include caveats on medical practice within the scope of the law. Some physicians may not recognize that these legal and liability requirements extend not only to physical danger, but also to infectious diseases, medical illness, and drug effects.