File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

Conference Paper: With others and for others: Accounting for decisions about genetic testing in the clinic

TitleWith others and for others: Accounting for decisions about genetic testing in the clinic
Authors
Issue Date2014
Citation
The 12th Interdisciplinary Conference on Communication, Medicine and Ethics (COMET 2014), Lugano, Switzerland, 26-28 June 2014. How to Cite?
AbstractWhile there are various factors influencing clients’ decisions about genetic testing; testing for the sake of others is not uncommon (Hallowell et al. 2005, Ho et al. 2003). This paper focuses on decisions about testing (DOT) when a genetic mutation is identified in a Sudden Arrhythmia Death Syndromes (SADS) patient and it is unclear whether the mutation is the cause of the disease. Family members are then asked to consider genetic testing to ascertain the client’s genetic status and future risk. The paper examines, at the interactional level, how genetic counselors, clients and family members negotiate decision-making involving others. The data consists of 23 video-recorded consultations obtained from a Hong Kong hospital. Episodes of decision-making about testing are identified and extracted from the transcribed data. By using theme-oriented discourse analysis (Roberts & Sarangi 2005), the analysis focuses on the discourse strategies that participants employ to foreground the possible benefits when other family members undergo the genetic test. Preliminary findings show a disjuncture of perspectives between genetic counselors and family members in terms of the benefits of testing. While genetic counselors see testing as a means of confirming the diagnosis and managing risk, family members voice concerns about the usefulness of the test for a client’s treatment. To mitigate these different perspectives on DOT, participants use a range of discourse strategies, such as contrast, foregrounding, self-and-other construction (Sarangi 2010) as a way of emphasizing future scenarios. This study, in sum, elucidates how other-oriented decisions are made in the clinical setting.
DescriptionSession 12: Communication and Decision-Making in Genetic Counseling
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/205489

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAu Yeung, GKYen_US
dc.contributor.authorZayts, Oen_US
dc.contributor.authorSarangi, SKen_US
dc.contributor.authorChung, BHYen_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-09-20T02:57:07Z-
dc.date.available2014-09-20T02:57:07Z-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifier.citationThe 12th Interdisciplinary Conference on Communication, Medicine and Ethics (COMET 2014), Lugano, Switzerland, 26-28 June 2014.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/205489-
dc.descriptionSession 12: Communication and Decision-Making in Genetic Counseling-
dc.description.abstractWhile there are various factors influencing clients’ decisions about genetic testing; testing for the sake of others is not uncommon (Hallowell et al. 2005, Ho et al. 2003). This paper focuses on decisions about testing (DOT) when a genetic mutation is identified in a Sudden Arrhythmia Death Syndromes (SADS) patient and it is unclear whether the mutation is the cause of the disease. Family members are then asked to consider genetic testing to ascertain the client’s genetic status and future risk. The paper examines, at the interactional level, how genetic counselors, clients and family members negotiate decision-making involving others. The data consists of 23 video-recorded consultations obtained from a Hong Kong hospital. Episodes of decision-making about testing are identified and extracted from the transcribed data. By using theme-oriented discourse analysis (Roberts & Sarangi 2005), the analysis focuses on the discourse strategies that participants employ to foreground the possible benefits when other family members undergo the genetic test. Preliminary findings show a disjuncture of perspectives between genetic counselors and family members in terms of the benefits of testing. While genetic counselors see testing as a means of confirming the diagnosis and managing risk, family members voice concerns about the usefulness of the test for a client’s treatment. To mitigate these different perspectives on DOT, participants use a range of discourse strategies, such as contrast, foregrounding, self-and-other construction (Sarangi 2010) as a way of emphasizing future scenarios. This study, in sum, elucidates how other-oriented decisions are made in the clinical setting.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Conference on Communication, Medicine & Ethics, COMET 2014en_US
dc.titleWith others and for others: Accounting for decisions about genetic testing in the clinicen_US
dc.typeConference_Paperen_US
dc.identifier.emailZayts, O: zayts@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.emailChung, BHY: bhychung@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityZayts, O=rp01211en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros238324en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros228295-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats