Mr Ryan Friets1
1National University Of Singapore, , Singapore
Biography:
Bio to come
Abstract:
In many jurisdictions, there does not currently exist a general duty of care for healthcare providers to disclose incidental findings from whole-genome sequencing (‘WGS’), either by statute or common law. I propose that such a duty could be found in relation to non-invasive prenatal testing involving WGS in jurisdictions that adopt a similar approach to the UK in Montgomery v Lanarkshire such as Singapore.
In Montgomery, the Court held that doctors owed a duty of care to patients to disclose any information which a reasonable person in the patient’s position would attach significance to when making a healthcare decision. A decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy can be affected by any subjective factor, and the right to reproductive autonomy in that regard is upheld through the open availability of termination in both the UK and Singapore. By holding that any incidental findings could be relevant to the pregnant woman’s decision to continue the pregnancy, it can be construed that all such findings are material and therefore a duty to disclose them arises.
However, exploring the content of this duty highlights the different interpretations of materiality across jurisdictions, which may not align with any legislative intention to protect reproductive rights. The ‘subjective patient’ standard of Montgomery covers a wider scope of findings than an ‘objective patient’ standard. Given the intimacy of reproductive rights, this paper concludes by recommending that any regulation is better achieved via specific guidance or legislation implemented by regulatory bodies rather than by relying on common law.