Search

The literature suggests that recent advances in research, such as genomic studies, may have further complicated consent processes due to the complex nature of these studies and unfamiliarity with the concepts and methodologies involved. Some empirical studies in Africa have reported that although there is general support for genomic studies, particularly on the reuse of samples, there are also concerns about how the interests of key stakeholders such as participants (i.e. sample donors) and the broader local communities from which samples are collected can and should be ascertained and protected. The focus of the paper by Mweemba et al. reports on the findings of a qualitative study with participants recruited for an H3Africa study on rheumatic heart disease in Zambia. The study suggests that conventional ethics standards and practices may not be sufficiently responsive to participant and community concerns and interests in addressing the ethical complexity of the ethical challenges in research. [Extracted from the article]

Realizing the benefits of translating psychiatric genomics research into mental health care is not straightforward. The translation process gives rise to ethical challenges that are distinctive from challenges posed within psychiatric genomics research itself, or that form part of the delivery of clinical psychiatric genetics services. This article outlines and considers three distinct ethical concerns posed by the process of translating genomic research into frontline psychiatric practice and policy making. First, the genetic essentialism that is commonly associated with the genomics revolution in health care might inadvertently exacerbate stigma towards people with mental disorders. Secondly, the promises of genomic medicine advance a narrative of individual empowerment. This narrative could promote a fatalism towards patients' biology in ways that function in practice to undermine patients' agency and autonomy, or, alternatively, a heightened sense of subjective genetic responsibility could become embedded within mental health services that leads to psychosocial therapeutic approaches and the clinician-patient therapeutic alliance being undermined. Finally, adopting a genomics-focused approach to public mental health risks shifting attention away from the complex causal relationships between inequitable socio-economic, political, and cultural structures and negative mental health outcomes. The article concludes by outlining a number of potential pathways for future ethics research that emphasizes the importance of examining appropriate translation mechanisms, the complementarity between genetic and psychosocial models of mental disorder, the implications of genomic information for the clinician-patient relationship, and funding priorities and resource allocation decision making in mental health. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

A review of the article "Psychiatric Genomics and Mental Health Treatment: Setting the Ethical Agenda" by Kong and colleagues is presented.