Reply to Sharpe

Abstract

To the Editor:Mr. Sharpe correctly notes that in our article (Fitzpatrick et al. 1999xThe duty to recontact: attitudes of genetics service providers. Fitzpatrick, JL, Hahn, C, Costa, T, and Huggins, MJ. Am J Hum Genet. 1999; 64: 852–860Abstract | Full Text | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (26)See all ReferencesFitzpatrick et al. 1999) he was credited for considering the existence of a physician's duty of care toward patients (Sharpe 1994xPsychological aspects of genetic counseling: a legal perspective. Sharpe, NF. Am J Med Genet. 1994; 50: 234–238Crossref | PubMedSee all References1994). His comments in this regard were indeed made in the context of Huntington disease, but, as we did not attribute to him any opinion on the duty to recontact, his position on this subject was not misrepresented, but simply omitted, from our discussion. We apologize to Mr. Sharpe and thank him for clarifying his position. The intention of our article was to report and discuss original research findings and not to present a detailed analysis of medical principles and legal obligations associated with a theoretical duty to recontact. It was our hope that our article would stimulate such a discourse, and we thank Mr. Sharpe for his insightful comments.