The first paragraph notes the typical pros and cons cited by bioethicists "regarding the extent to which such results should be returned to patients and their physicians." Pros include beneficence, respect for persons, and incentivizing participation in clinical trials. Cons include the need for additional staffing to explain the results to physicians/patients and the possibility of poor decision-making by physicians/patients based on genetic variants of unknown significance. The second paragraph admits that "a substantial majority of patients … prefer to receive their individual research results in exchange for enrolling onto clinical studies based on these data." The author then recommends creation of a protocol to guide the ethical return of genetic results to physicians/patients. Garraway envisions empirical development of such a protocol via multiple ethical genetic studies performed synchronously in conjunction with multiple clinical genetic studies.
My analysis: The potential negatives of releasing genetic results to physicians/patients are perceived to be so minor by the average patient that the average patient, who usually fears anything associated with genetics (e.g. the anti-GMO craze), insists on access to such results. I agree with the average patient. Elitists beware, for the average patient is not as stupid as you believe.