Genomic Medicine and Individual Autonomy
Reflections on Knowledge Societies and Governmentality
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15469845 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Richard H Parrish (0000-0002-5324-9139, Walmart (United States), corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 23 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 234-234 |
| Publication date | 2026-02-13 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1661-7827 • E-ISSN: 1660-4601 |
| Publisher | Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (PUBLISHER • CH) |
| DOI | 10.3390/ijerph23020234 |
| PMID | 41752316 |
| OpenAlex | W7128819259 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 55 |
This paper offers a comprehensive analysis of the multifaceted implications of genomic medicine's evolving regulatory frameworks on individual autonomy. As genomic technologies increasingly permeate healthcare and society, they fundamentally reshape the boundaries of health and disease, profoundly impacting personal identity and self-understanding. The expansion of genomic surveillance and risk classification introduces new forms of scrutiny and vigilance, as individuals are redefined according to probabilistic genetic markers rather than traditional clinical symptoms. Regulatory developments facilitate compulsory interventions and challenge established notions of informed consent, as genetic risk factors in otherwise healthy individuals prompt preemptive medicalization and intervention. These changes heighten the risk of genetic discrimination and reinforce social stratifications, as access to care, insurance, and employment may become contingent upon genomic profiles. Furthermore, the commodification of genetic information raises significant concerns about privacy, ownership, and the potential misuse of personal data by commercial and governmental entities. The increasingly blurred lines between medical necessity and social control highlight constitutional and ethical dilemmas, particularly regarding the balance of public health priorities and the preservation of individual freedoms. Drawing on theoretical frameworks such as Stehr's knowledge society and governmentality, the paper critically examines how regulatory responses both reflect and shape broader societal values, often introducing persistent uncertainty and vulnerability into the core of personal and collective identity. Ultimately, the analysis underscores the urgent need for innovative governance models that can effectively balance the promise of scientific and technological advances with the protection of personal autonomy, democratic knowledge control, and social justice in the genomic era. Lay statement: This paper explores how new rules and regulations around genetic medicine can impact people's personal freedoms and sense of identity. It highlights concerns about privacy, discrimination, and the ways in which our understanding of health and disease is changing, calling for better protections and fairer policies as genetic technologies become more common
Bioethics · Commodification · Corporate governance · Governmentality · Health care · Medicalization · Personal identity · Public health · Scrutiny · Vulnerability (computing · BRCA gene mutations in cancer · Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations · Race, Genetics, and Society
Solidarity in Biomedicine and Beyond
The Path to Personalized Medicine
Towards a ‘patient-centred’ operationalisation of the new dynamic concept of health
WHO guidance for human genome data collection, access, use and sharing
A genetic imaginary for social justice
From “Personalized” to “Precision” Medicine
Experts
The Fragility of Modern Societies
The Politics of Life Itself
The role of experiential knowledge within attitudes towards genetic carrier screening
Health’ surveillance
Demography and the rise, apparent fall, and resurgence of eugenics
Life Exposed
Patients-in-Waiting
Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |