Search

Background: Advances in technology and knowledge have facilitated both an increase in the number of patient variants reported and variants reclassified. While there is currently no duty to recontact for reclassified genetic variants, there may be a responsibility. The purpose of this clinical practice advisory document is to provide healthcare practitioners guidance for recontact of previously identified and classified variants, suggest methods for recontact, and principles to consider, taking account patient safety, feasibility, ethical considerations, health service capacity and resource constraints. The target audience are practitioners who order genetic testing, follow patients who have undergone genetic testing and those analysing and reporting genetic testing., Methods: A multidisciplinary group of laboratory and ordering clinicians, patient representatives, ethics and legal researchers and a genetic counsellor from the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors reviewed the existing literature and guidelines on responsibility to recontact in a clinical context to make recommendations. Comments were collected from the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists (CCMG) Education, Ethics, and Public Policy, Clinical Practice and Laboratory Practice committees, and the membership at large., Results: Following incorporation of feedback, and external review by the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors and patient groups, the document was approved by the CCMG Board of Directors. The CCMG is the Canadian organisation responsible for certifying laboratory and medical geneticists who provide medical genetics services, and for establishing professional and ethical standards for clinical genetics services in Canada., Conclusion: The document describes the ethical and practical factors and suggests a shared responsibility between patients, ordering clinician and laboratory practitioners., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic diseases for adult-onset conditions is ethically permissible for various conditions, including when the condition is fully penetrant or confers disease predisposition. The Committee strongly recommends that a genetic counselor experienced with both preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic diseases and assisted reproductive technology therapies counsel patients considering such procedures., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Pregnancy planning and genetic testing (PPGT) has emerged as a tool in reproductive healthcare, offering parents-to-be insight in their risks of having a child with a genetic disorder. This paper reviews the advantages, drawbacks and challenges associated with PPGT, providing some practical guidance for health care professionals. Advantages include identification of genetic risks, a possibility to informed reproductive decision-making, and the potential to reduce the parents-to-be risk for an affected child. Challenges and drawbacks include provision of service, ethical considerations, genetic counselling complexities, and the need to increase public and professional awareness by comprehensive education and accessibility. Practical guidance involves considerations for selecting appropriate candidates, counselling strategies, and how to integrate PPGT into existing healthcare frameworks. By addressing these factors, PPGT can offer an increased reproductive informed choice for the individual and the couple reducing the burden of disease in the family.

Debates about the prospective clinical use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) have grown considerably in the last years. The potential benefits of PRS to improve patient care at individual and population levels have been extensively underlined. Nonetheless, the use of PRS in clinical contexts presents a number of unresolved ethical challenges and consequent normative gaps that hinder their optimal implementation. Here, we conducted a systematic review of reasons of the normative literature discussing ethical issues and moral arguments related to the use of PRS for the prevention and treatment of common complex diseases. In total, we have included and analyzed 34 records, spanning from 2013 to 2023. The findings have been organized in three major themes: in the first theme, we consider the potential harms of PRS to individuals and their kin. In the theme "Threats to health equity," we consider ethical concerns of social relevance, with a focus on justice issues. Finally, the theme "Towards best practices" collects a series of research priorities and provisional recommendations to be considered for an optimal clinical translation of PRS. We conclude that the use of PRS in clinical care reinvigorates old debates in matters of health justice; however, open questions, regarding best practices in clinical counseling, suggest that the ethical considerations applicable in monogenic settings will not be sufficient to face PRS emerging challenges., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Genetic testing has familial implications. Counsellors find themselves in (moral) conflict between medical confidentiality (towards the patient) and a potential right or even duty to warn at-risk relatives. Legal regulations vary between countries. English literature about German law is scarce. We reviewed the literature of relevant legal cases, focussing on German law, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. This article aims to familiarise counsellors with their responsibilities, compare the situation between countries and point out legally unresolved areas.According to the German Genetic Diagnostics Act (Gendiagnostikgesetz) in case of an 'avoidable or treatable' genetic disorder, geneticists ought to confine themselves to the obligated advice to the patient. Whether a breach of the duty of confidentiality can be justified in exceptional cases by 'necessity as justification' for actively informing relatives at risk remains legally unclear. In case of a 'neither avoidable nor treatable' genetic disease, geneticists should also refrain from actively informing relatives as the justifiable state of emergency does not permit to break the duty of confidentiality., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Ensuring accordance with principles of healthcare ethics requires improved communication of pathogen genomic data. This could include educating healthcare professionals in communicating pathogen genomic information to individuals, developing ethical frameworks for reporting pathogen genomic results to individuals, responsible media reporting guidelines, and counselling for individuals ('pathogen genetic counselling')., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood the BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: none.

Purpose: There is robust research examining the negative impact of racial and socioeconomic implicit bias on healthcare provider clinical decision-making. However, other under-studied important biases are likely to impact clinical care as well. The goal of this study was to explore the presence of bias against people with physical disability among a heterogeneous group of healthcare workers and trainees and to evaluate the effect of implicit association testing and an educational module on this bias., Method: The study was composed of a one-hour web-based survey and educational module. The survey included an explicit disability bias assessment, disability Implicit Association Tests (IATs), demographic collection, and pre- and post- module clinical vignettes of prenatal patient scenarios. In addition to providing counseling to hypothetical patients, participants also indicated their personal preferences on genetic testing and termination. The educational module focused on the principles of patient-centered counseling., Results: The collected data reflects responses from 335 participants. Within this sample, there were both explicit and implicit biases towards individuals with physical disabilities. Prior to the IAT and educational module, when respondents were tasked with providing genetic testing recommendations, implicit biases and personal preferences for genetic testing and termination influenced respondents' clinical recommendations. Importantly, having previous professional experience with individuals with disabilities diminished biased clinical recommendations prior to the intervention. In response to the IAT and educational intervention, the effect of implicit bias and personal preferences on clinical recommendations decreased., Conclusions: This study demonstrates how bias against a marginalized group exists within the medical community and that personal opinions can impact clinical counseling. Importantly, our findings suggest that there are strategies that can be easily implemented into curricula to address disability bias, including formal educational interventions and the addition of professional experiences into healthcare professional training programs., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

To conduct a long-term birth cohort study that includes genetic analysis, it is crucial to understand the attitudes of participants to genetic analysis and then take appropriate approaches for addressing their ambiguous and negative attitudes. This study aimed to explore participants' attitudes toward genetic analysis and associated background factors among mothers who were enrolled in a large Japanese birth cohort. A questionnaire was sent to participants' households, and the responses of 1762 mothers (34.0%) were used for the study. The majority of mothers recognized genetic analysis for themselves and their children and sharing of genetic data as beneficial. A low knowledge level of genomic terminology was associated with ambiguous attitudes toward genetic analysis and data sharing. Education level was positively associated with the recognition of the benefits of genetic analysis. Concern about handling genetic information was associated with the unacceptability of data sharing. Trust was associated with the approval of genetic analysis. Most mothers preferred that genetic analysis results be returned. These findings suggest the need for multiple efforts to maximize participants' acceptance of genetic analysis, such as utilizing an educational approach to encourage familiarity with genetics/genomics, optimizing explanations for different educational levels, and explicitly disclosing the handling policy for genetic information.

Objectives: Genetic testing (GT) companies have developed patient education videos to supplement or replace pre-test genetic counseling (GC) by certified genetic counselors (CGC). The aim of this study was to assess the quality of these videos compared to the standard of care (SOC)., Methods: Videos from four major GT companies were selected from an internet search identifying pre-test patient education videos. A scoring rubric with 22 questions and 36 total points was devised to assess quality metrics, as described by the National Cancer Institute and National Society of Genetic Counselors. Twenty-two individuals with varying genetics expertise (3 gynecologic oncologists, 3 academic generalists, 4 CGC, a genetics community health worker, 3 cancer care navigators, and 8 medical students) scored each video. Scorers were blinded to others' assessments., Results: Invitae had the highest median score (26/36), followed by Myriad (22/36), Ambry (17.5/36), and Color (15/36). All videos scored highly in explaining DNA basics, cancer development, and hereditary cancer predisposition. All addressed benefits of GT but failed to address potential disadvantages. All scored poorly in explaining medical terms and different GT options. There was variability in addressing patient concerns including cost, privacy, and procedure., Conclusions: There is significant variation in the content of pre-test patient education videos between GT companies. None of the videos met the SOC for pre-test GC, and none addressed disadvantages of GT, possibly due to a conflict of interest. With improvement in content, accessibility, and use of interactive platforms, these videos may serve as an adjunct to in-person pre-test GC., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

It is important to identify ethical and professional challenges associated with genetic counseling services and systems to improve these services. In previous studies, specific challenges in genetic counseling were categorized into 16 domains. However, these studies were limited to a few countries, and genetic counseling differs according to national cultures or systems. Thus, additional efforts should be made to collect and analyze challenges in genetic counseling to address these issues. We interviewed 48 genetic counseling professionals in Japan (including 29 clinical geneticists, 17 genetic counselors, and 2 other professionals) about anecdotes that included ethical professional challenges. Thematic analysis was used to code the interview data, and anecdotes were categorized according to the ethical and professional challenges. The anecdotes (n = 333) were classified into the 16 previously identified domains and three unique subcategories: 'lack of understanding about genetic professionals or departments of genetic counseling by other professionals and patients', 'insufficient communication skills to carry out counseling on the part of the genetic counseling professionals', and 'lack of a system for self-improvement'. Many of the anecdotes also noted the emotional responses domain. The challenges experienced by Japanese genetic counseling professionals described herein will improve the quality of the service these professionals provide. Furthermore, the results can assist development of high-quality genetic counseling systems in countries developing these systems., (© 2020 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Humanism is a philosophy that emphasizes rational, scientific, and empiric analysis of the world we live in to improve the physical, social, and psychological life of humanity. Although individual genetic counselors may or may not identify as humanists, genetic counseling and genetic testing are primarily humanistic endeavors because they are situated in the context of humanistic medicine in the westernized world. Humanistic goals are also implicit and explicit in the profession and practice of genetic counselors. This review examines the relationship between humanism and genetic counseling, highlighting situations in which the two may be discordant, and suggests ways that genetic counselors can reconcile these discordances., (Copyright © 2020 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; all rights reserved.)

The field of genetic counseling has grown and diversified since the profession emerged in the early 1970s. In the same period, genomic testing has become more complex, profitable, and widespread. With these developments, the scope of ethical considerations relevant to genetic counseling has expanded. In light of this, we find it helpful to revisit how ethical and relational variables are used to inform genetic counseling practice. Our specific focus is on whether, and to what extent, it is ethically acceptable for genetic counselors to make normative recommendations to patients. This article builds on prior literature that has critiqued nondirectiveness, a concept that has influenced and constrained the modern profession of genetic counseling since its origin. In it, we review scholarly efforts to move beyond nondirectiveness, which we believe privilege patient autonomy at the expense of other important values. We then argue that genetic counselors should favor a more explicit commitment to the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, as well as a broader understanding of autonomy and the relational variables that impact genetic counseling. Finally, to translate our arguments into practice, we present a framework of six considerations that genetic counselors should take into account when deciding whether it is ethically acceptable, or even desirable, to make recommendations to patients in certain areas of their work., (© 2019 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Communicating results from genomic sequencing to family members can play an essential role allowing access to surveillance, prevention, treatment or prophylactic measures. Yet, many patients struggle with communication of these results and it is unclear to what extent this is discussed during the consent process. We conducted an online systematic search and used content analysis to explore how consent forms for genomic sequencing address communication of genetic information to family members. Our search yielded 68 consent forms from 11 countries. Although 57 forms alluded to the familial nature of results, forms varied in their discussion of the potential familial implications of results. Only 11 addressed communication of genetic information with family members, with differences in who would be responsible for this process. Several forms offered patients options regarding communication, even in countries where national guidelines and legislation allow for the disclosure of results in the absence of patient consent. These findings are concerning because they show how forms may potentially mislead patients and health care professionals about whether communication is permissible in cases where the patient does not consent. We suggest that providers and health care professionals reconsider how consent forms address communicating genetic information to family members.

This study adopts a heuristic technique to argue the thesis that a set of norms rooted in the African philosophy of Ubuntu can usefully supplement current research guidelines for dealing with incidental findings discovered in genomic research. The consensus regarding incidental findings is that there is an ethical obligation to return individual genetic incidental findings that meet the threshold of analytic and clinical validity, have clinical utility, and are actionable, provided that research contributors have not opted out from receiving such information. This study outlines the hurdles that may hinder the integration of this consensus in mainstream clinical practice, and shows how an ethical theory from the global south may be used to address the same. This will advance the field of ethical, legal and social issues of personalized medicine by providing exposure to the under-represented African perspective on the ethical, legal, and social issues of genomics.

Respect for patient autonomy has served as the dominant ethical principle of genetic counselling, but as we move into a genomic era, it is time to actively re-examine the role that this principle plays in genetic counselling practice. In this paper, we argue that the field of genetic counselling should move away from its emphasis on patient autonomy and toward the incorporation of a more balanced set of principles that allows counsellors to offer clear guidance about how best to obtain or use genetic information. We begin with a brief history of how respect for patient autonomy gained such emphasis in the field and how it has taken on various manifestations over time, including the problematic concept of nondirectiveness. After acknowledging the field's preliminary move away from nondirectiveness, we turn to a series of arguments about why the continued dominance of patient autonomy has become untenable given the arrival of the genomic era. To conclude, we describe how a more complete set of bioethical principles can be adapted and used by genetic counsellors to strengthen their practice without undermining patient autonomy.

Whether individual results of genetic research studies ought to be disclosed to study participants has been debated in recent decades. Previously, the prevailing expert view discouraged the return of individual research results to participants because of the potential lack of analytic validity, questionable clinical validity and medical actionability, and questions about whether it is the role of research to provide participants with their data. With additional knowledge of participant perspectives and shifting views about the benefits of research and respect for participants, current expert consensus is moving toward support of returning such results. Significant ethical controversies remain, and there are many practical questions left to address, including appropriate procedures for returning results and the potential burden to clinicians when patients seek guidance about the clinical implications of research results. In this review, we describe current views regarding the return of genetic research results, including controversies and practical challenges, and consider the application of these issues to research on apolipoprotein L1 ( APOL1 ), a gene recently associated with health disparities in kidney disease. Although this case is unique, it illustrates the complexities involved in returning results and highlights remaining questions., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Predictive genetic counseling for neurodegenerative diseases commenced with Huntington's disease (HD). Because the psychological issues and outcomes have been best studied in HD, the HD genetic counseling and testing protocol is still accepted as the gold standard for genetic counseling for these diseases. Yet, advances in genomic technology have produced an abundance of new information about the genetics of diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and Parkinson's disease. The resulting expansion of genetic tests together with the availability of direct-to-consumer testing and clinical trials for treatment of these diseases present new ethical and practical issues requiring modifications to the protocol for HD counseling and new demands on both physicians and genetic counselors. This work reviews the history of genetic counseling for neurodegenerative diseases, its current practice, and the future direction of genetic counseling for these conditions., (Copyright © 2020 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; all rights reserved.)

Consistently, the field of genetic counseling has advocated that parents be advised to defer elective genetic testing of minors until adulthood to prevent a range of potential harms, including stigma, discrimination, and the loss of the child's ability to decide for him- or herself as an adult. However, consensus around the policy of "defer-when-possible" obscures the extent to which this norm is currently under siege. Increasingly, routine use of full or partial genome sequencing challenges our ability to control what is discovered in childhood or, when applied in a prenatal context, even before birth. The expansion of consumer-initiated genetic testing services challenges our ability to restrict what is available to minors. As the barriers to access crumble, medical professionals should proceed with caution, bearing in mind potential risks and continuing to assess the impact of genetic testing on this vulnerable population., (Copyright © 2020 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; all rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All the authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Video-recording healthcare interactions provides important opportunities for research and service improvement. However, this method brings about tensions, especially when recording sensitive topics. Subsequent reflection may compel the researcher to engage in ethical and moral deliberations. This paper presents experiences from a South African genetic counselling study which made use of video-recordings to understand communicative processes in routine practice. Video-recording as a research method, as well as contextual and process considerations are discussed, such as researching one's own field, issues of trust and anonymity, the challenge of providing true informed consent and capturing details which may cause psychological harm. Several recommendations for research practice in diverse healthcare settings are made. This includes the value of reflective pieces, the importance of retrospective consent, disclosure of the limitations to anonymity, as well as the collective responsibility of those involved to produce ethical research. These recommendations have value for genetic counselling and other healthcare fields., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Studies published over 15 years ago surveyed genetic counselors (GC) and medical geneticists (MG) to examine their clinical experiences with the conflict of "duty to warn" versus patient confidentiality. Federal and state laws pertaining to medical professionals' duty to warn have since been implemented following the publications of these studies. Using a merged version of surveys employed in the prior studies, this study seeks to understand clinicians' current decision-making process when faced with patient refusal to inform at-risk relatives, as well as their familiarity with and opinions of laws and guidelines covering this issue. Consistent with the previous studies, the majority of MG and almost half of GC experience patient refusal. Significantly, fewer MG and GC believe they had a duty to warn their patients' relatives of genetic risk. Only 8% of participants believe current guidelines effectively address the issue of duty to warn. Participant awareness of federal or state laws regulating the disclosure of genetic information remains low. The conflict of duty to warn remains a shared experience among genetics professionals, and resources are needed to facilitate informed decision-making. Participants' opinions of current policies and clinical decisions may guide professional actions regarding duty to warn., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Detection of genetic aberrations in prenatal samples, obtained through amniocentesis or chorion villus biopsy, is increasingly performed using chromosomal microarray (CMA), a technique that can uncover both aneuploidies and copy number variants throughout the genome. Despite the obvious benefits of CMA, the decision on implementing the technology is complicated by ethical issues concerning variant interpretation and reporting. In Belgium, uniform guidelines were composed and a shared database for prenatal CMA findings was established. This Belgian approach sparks discussion: it is evidence-based, prevents inconsistencies and avoids parental anxiety, but can be considered paternalistic. Here, we reflect on the cultural and moral bases of the Belgian reporting system of prenatally detected variants., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Genomic high-throughput technologies (GHTT) such as next-generation sequencing represent a fast and cost-effective tool toward a more comprehensive understanding of the molecular background of complex diseases. However, technological advances contrast with insufficient application in clinical practice. Thus, patients, physicians, and other professionals are faced with tough challenges that forestall the efficient and effective implementation. With the increasing application of genetic testing, it is of paramount importance that physicians and other professionals in healthcare recognize the restrictions and potential of GHTT, in order to understand and interpret the complex data in the context of health and disease. At the same time, the growing volume and complexity of data is forever increasing the need for sustainable infrastructure and state-of-the-art tools for efficient data management, including their analysis and integration. The large pool of sensitive information remains difficult to interpret and fundamental questions spanning from billing to legal, social, and ethical issues have still not been resolved. Here we summarize and discuss these obstacles in an interdisciplinary context and suggest ways to overcome them. Continuous discussion with clinicians, data managers, biostatisticians, systems medicine experts, ethicists, legal scholars, and patients illuminates the strengths, weakness, and current practices in the pipeline from biomaterial to sequencing and data management. This discussion also highlights the new, cross-disciplinary working collaborations to realize the wide-ranging challenges in clinical genomics including the exceptional demands placed on the staff preparing and presenting the data, as well as the question as to how to report the data and results to patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Black women at-risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) continue to underutilize genetic counseling and testing (GCT). One reason for this disparity is a fear of discrimination from insurance companies if identified as high-risk. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was enacted to protect against this type of discrimination; however, Black women's levels of confidence in this law are unknown. In this descriptive study, we sought to (1) assess Black women's confidence in the GINA law and (2) identify multilevel factors related to their confidence in GINA. Ninety-four Black women at-risk of HBOC completed surveys that assessed intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural factors. Multiple regression analysis determined factors associated with confidence in GINA. Most women were ≤50 years of age (66.0%) and about half never had a cancer diagnosis (51.1%). Confidence in GINA was moderate (mean = 10.67; standard deviation = 2.54; range = 5-15). Women who valued GCT reported more confidence in GINA (β = 0.345; CI 0.017 to 0.673; p = 0.040). Lack of confidence in GINA may serve as a barrier to seeking GCT. Efforts to increase the perceived value of GCT among Black women could be benefited by increasing awareness of national efforts towards privacy protections of genetic information.

Objective: Comprehensive chromosome examination is a promising approach to Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT). Next to testing of specific chromosomes, such as in the case of reduced fertility due to chromosomal translocations, it allows testing of all chromosomes. Hence it potentially reduces the time to pregnancy and the risk of miscarriage. But comprehensive testing also introduces some ethical issues. For example, what is the role of the professional in the decision making regarding embryos with chromosomal abnormalities that are potentially viable? Which chromosomal abnormalities should be communicated to people undergoing fertility treatment? With this paper we wanted to explore the ethical issues related to comprehensive chromosome screening in Preimplantation Genetic Testing., Design: In order to explore these issues, we interviewed seven couples undergoing PGT for chromosomal translocations at the VUB University Hospital, Belgium. We presented them with three fictional cases: the transfer of an embryo with trisomy 21, of an embryo with a sex chromosome aneuploidy and of an embryo with a chromosomal microdeletion., Results: We found that opinions regarding the role of fertility professionals in deciding which embryos to transfer were mixed. Moreover, where to draw the line between healthy and unhealthy embryos was unclear. We also found that couples, although they thought that comprehensive chromosome testing had certain benefits, also considered the increased waiting time for transfer a heavy burden., Conclusions: In the light of comprehensive chromosome screening of embryos, persons undergoing fertility treatment may have views on the burdens and benefits of the techniques that are not analogous to the views of professionals., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Genome-wide association studies have revolutionized our understanding of the genetic architecture of complex traits and diseases over the last decade. This knowledge is enabling clinicians, researchers, and direct-to-consumer genetics companies to conduct disease susceptibility testing based on powerful methods such as polygenic risk scoring. However, these technologies raise a set of complex ethical, legal, social, and policy considerations. Here we review and discuss a series of ethical dilemmas associated with susceptibility genetic testing for the two most common late-onset neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, including testing in asymptomatic individuals. Among others, these include informed consent, disclosure of results and unexpected findings, mandatory screening, privacy and confidentiality, and stigma and genetic discrimination. Importantly, appropriate counseling is a deciding factor for the ethical soundness of genetic testing, which poses a challenge for the regulation of these tests and the training of healthcare professionals. As genetic knowledge about these diseases continues growing and genetic testing becomes more widespread, it is increasingly important to raise awareness among researchers, medical practitioners, genetic counselors, and decision makers about the ethical, legal, and social issues associated with genetic testing for polygenic diseases., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Past studies emphasized the possible cultural influence on attitudes regarding reprogenetics and reproductive risks among medical students who are taken to be "future physicians." These studies were crafted in order to enhance the knowledge and expand the boundaries of cultural competence. Yet such studies were focused on MS from relatively marginalized cultures, namely either from non-Western developing countries or minority groups in developed countries. The current study sheds light on possible cultural influences of the dominant culture on medical students in two developed countries, potentially with different dominant cultures regarding reprogenetics and reproductive risks: Israel and Croatia., Methods: Quantitative-statistical analyses were employed, based on anonymous questionnaires completed by 150 first year medical students in Israel and Croatia. The questionnaires pertained to the knowledge and attitudes regarding genetics, reproduction and reproductive risks. These questionnaires were completed before the students were engaged in learning about these topics as part of the curriculum in their medical school., Results: Substantial differences were revealed between the two groups of medical students. Israeli medical students were less tolerant regarding reproductive risks and more knowledgeable about genetics and reproductive risks than Croatian medical students. For example, while nearly all Israeli medical students (96%) disagreed with the idea that "Screening for reproductive risks in prospective parents is wrong," less than 40% of their Croatian counterparts shared a similar stance. Similarly, all (100%) Israeli medical students correctly observed that "A carrier of a recessive genetic disease actually has the disease" was wrong, as opposed to only 82% of Croatian students., Conclusions: By linking applicable theoretical literature to these findings, we suggest that they may reflect the hidden influence of the dominant culture in each country, disguised as part of the "culture of medicine." Acknowledging and learning about such influence of the dominant culture, may be an important addition to the training of medical students in cultural competence, and specifically their cultural awareness. Such an acknowledgement may also pave the road to drawing the attention of existing physicians regarding a less known yet an important aspect of their cultural competence, insofar as the cultural awareness component is concerned.

Historically, both pretest and posttest genetic counseling has been standard of care for genetic testing. This model should be adapted for primary care providers (PCPs) willing to learn critical information about the test and key concepts that patients need to make an informed testing decision. It is helpful for PCPs to discuss a few initial patients with a genetic counselor to prepare for the key concepts of pretest and posttest counseling. This article provides guidance about the recommended level of involvement of PCPs based on the test indication, test complexity, disorder management, and the potential for psychosocial sequela., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Compared to clinicians previously surveyed, primary care providers employed in a health system known for clinical genomics were more likely to have ordered or referred a patient for genetic testing, but had only modestly more genetics training and reported similarly low levels of comfort answering patient questions about genetic risk. Most supported population genomic screening, reported willingness to get screened themselves, and judged a hypothetical patient's decision to be screened favorably relative to a similar patient's decision to decline screening. Stakeholder perceptions of the ethical appropriateness of nudging at-risk patients to discuss testing with counselors were mixed., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

People with genetic predispositions to disease are faced with uncertainty about whether, when, and to what extent an illness will actually develop. This prognostic uncertainty, combined with knowledge that preventative interventions (eg, risk-reducing surgeries for familial cancer syndromes) could significantly affect people's lives, renders prevention decisions especially challenging. This article illuminates ethical questions about the use of decision aids for people with genetic predispositions and calls for approaching individual decisions in light of ongoing communication and reflection about a person's life goals and values., (© 2019 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

The duty to recontact continues to be revisited in the field of clinical genetics and is currently relevant for cancer genetic counseling given the transition from single-gene to multi-gene panel testing. We recruited cancer genetic counselors through the National Society of Genetic Counselors list-serv to complete an online survey assessing current practices and perspectives regarding recontacting patients about diagnostic genetic tests. Forty-one percent of respondents reported that they have recontacted patients to offer updated (new) diagnostic genetic testing (40/97). A majority (61%, 17/28), of genetic counselors who reported recontact specifically for panel testing indicated that the availability of management recommendations for genes not previously tested routinely was an important factor in the decision to recontact. All respondents who recontacted patients reported "improved patient care" as a perceived benefit. Respondents indicated that recontact is mostly a patient responsibility (49%), followed by a shared responsibility between the provider and patient (43%). Few respondents (2%) reported a uniform ethical duty to recontact patients regarding new and updated testing, while the majority (89%) felt that there was some degree of ethical duty. A greater percentage of those who reported past recontact practices reported intention to recontact in the future (p = 0.001). There is little consensus among the genetic counselor respondents about how to approach the recontacting of patients to offer updated genetic testing., (© 2019 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Where there is conflict between a patient's interests in non-disclosure of their genetic information to relatives and the relative's interest in knowing the information because it indicates their genetic risk, clinicians have customarily been able to protect themselves against legal action by maintaining confidence even if, professionally, they did not consider this to be the right thing to do. In ABC v St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust ([2017] EWCA Civ 336) the healthcare team recorded their concern about the wisdom of the patient's decision to withhold genetic risk information from his relative, but chose to respect what they considered to be an unwise choice. Even though professional guidance considers that clinicians have the discretion to breach confidence where they believe this to be justified, (Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of Pathologists and the British Society of Human Genetics, 2006; GMC, 2017) clinicians find it difficult to exercise this discretion in line with their convictions against the backdrop of the legal prioritisation of the duty to maintain confidence. Thus, the professional discretion is not being freely exercised because of doubts about the legal protection available in the event of disclosure. The reliance on consent as the legal basis for setting aside the duty of confidence often vetoes sharing information with relatives. This paper argues that an objective approach based on privacy, rather than a subjective consent-based approach, would give greater freedom to clinicians to exercise the discretion which their professional guidance affords., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Facilitating informed decision-making regarding genetic testing is a core component of genetic counseling practice. Internationally, genetic testing is shifting toward gene panels and genomic testing, including whole exome and whole genome sequencing to improve diagnostic yield and cost-effectiveness. This study explored genetics practitioners' current experience with panels and genomic tests and the associated evolution of genetic counseling practice. Genetics practitioners with genomic testing experience, were purposively invited to participate in a semi-structured telephone interview and to snowball the invitation to colleagues. Interviews conducted with participants residing in Australia (n = 9) and the UK (n = 5) were transcribed and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Three themes emerged: (a) Role delineation: current roles, future roles, and the influence of increasing complexity; (b) The evolving spectrum of practice: blurred boundaries between research and clinical services; impact on facilitation of informed consent; and return of results strategies; and (c) Policy and governance needs: equality of access; achieving consistent variant interpretation, reporting, and responsibility for review; managing incidental findings; and professional regulation for Australian genetic counselors. These exploratory data highlight that genetic counseling practice and the essential role of facilitating informed consent are evolving but remain patient-centered, with core skills underpinning practitioners' capacity to adapt., (© 2018 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

The practice of genetic counseling is going to be impacted by the public's expectation that goods, services, information, and experiences happen on demand, wherever and whenever people want them. Building from trends that are currently taking shape, this article looks just over a decade into the future-to 2030-to provide a description of how the field of genetics and genetic counseling will be changed, as well as advice for genetic counselors for how to prepare. We build from the prediction that a large portion of the general public will have access to their digitized whole genome sequence anytime, any place, on any device. We focus on five topics downstream of this prediction: public health, personal autonomy, polygenic scores (PGS), evolving clinical practices, and genetic privacy., (© 2019 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) has been available for several years now, with varying degrees of regulation across different countries. Despite a restrictive legal framework it is possible for consumers to order genetic tests from companies located in other countries. However, German laypeople's awareness and perceptions of DTC GT services is still unexplored. We conducted seven focus groups (participants n = 43) with German laypeople to explore their perceptions of and attitudes towards commercial genetic testing and its ethical implications. Participants were critical towards DTC GT. Criticism was directed at health-related, predictive testing, while lifestyle tests were accepted and even welcomed to some extent. Participants expressed strong reservations regarding commercial provision of genetic diagnostics and expressed a lack of trust in respective companies. They preferred non-commercial distribution within the public healthcare system. Participants also expressed high expectations of physicians' abilities to interpret information obtained via DTC GT companies and provide counseling. Legal restrictions on commercial distribution of genetic tests were opposed, with participants arguing that it should be available to consumers. DTC GT companies are not perceived as trustworthy when compared to the public healthcare system and its professional ethical standards and practices. Laypeople rated general consumer autonomy higher than their own concerns, thus recommending against strong legal regulation. We conclude that medicine's trustworthiness may be negatively affected if commercial provision is not visibly opposed by the medical professions, while DTC GT companies may gain in trustworthiness if they adapt to standards and practices upheld in medicine.

Telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is noninferior to in-person disclosure. However, how patients who prefer in-person communication of results differ from those who agree to telephone disclosure is unclear but important when considering delivery models for genetic medicine. Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone to in-person disclosure of genetic test results. We evaluated preferences for in-person disclosure, factors associated with this preference and outcomes compared to those who agreed to randomization. Among 1178 enrolled patients, 208 (18%) declined randomization, largely given a preference for in-person disclosure. These patients were more likely to be older (P = 0.007) and to have had multigene panel testing (P < 0.001). General anxiety (P = 0.007), state anxiety (P = 0.008), depression (P = 0.011), cancer-specific distress (P = 0.021) and uncertainty (P = 0.03) were higher after pretest counseling. After disclosure of results, they also had higher general anxiety (P = 0.003), depression (P = 0.002) and cancer-specific distress (P = 0.043). While telephone disclosure is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure in most patients, some patients have a strong preference for in-person communication. Patient age, distress and complexity of testing are important factors to consider and requests for in-person disclosure should be honored when possible., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Technological advances have increased the availability of genomic data in research and the clinic. If, over time, interpretation of the significance of the data changes, or new information becomes available, the question arises as to whether recontacting the patient and/or family is indicated. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with research groups from the UK and the Netherlands, developed recommendations on recontacting which, after public consultation, have been endorsed by ESHG Board. In clinical genetics, recontacting for updating patients with new, clinically significant information related to their diagnosis or previous genetic testing may be justifiable and, where possible, desirable. Consensus about the type of information that should trigger recontacting converges around its clinical and personal utility. The organization of recontacting procedures and policies in current health care systems is challenging. It should be sustainable, commensurate with previously obtained consent, and a shared responsibility between healthcare providers, laboratories, patients, and other stakeholders. Optimal use of the limited clinical resources currently available is needed. Allocation of dedicated resources for recontacting should be considered. Finally, there is a need for more evidence, including economic and utility of information for people, to inform which strategies provide the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources for recontacting.

Purpose: Accidental discovery of misattributed parentage is an age-old problem in clinical medicine, but the ability to detect it routinely has increased recently as a result of high-throughput DNA sequencing technologies coupled with family sequencing studies. Problems arise at the clinical-research boundary, where policies and consent forms guaranteeing nondisclosure may conflict with standard clinical care., Methods: To examine the challenges of managing misattributed parentage within hybrid translational research studies, we used a case study of a developmentally delayed child with a candidate variant found through a large-scale trio genome sequencing study in which data from unrelated samples were routinely excluded., Results: We discuss whether genetic parentage should be explicitly confirmed during clinical validation, thus giving greater weight to the diagnosis according to American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics variant interpretation guidelines, and what tensions this approach would create., Conclusion: We recommend that the possibility of finding and disclosing misattributed parentage should be addressed during the consent or pretest counseling process, and that clinical relevance should determine whether or not to disclose results in the clinic. This proposition has implications for research governance, and implies that it may not always be possible to uphold nondisclosure commitments as investigations move from research to clinical care.

Molecular pathology is becoming an increasingly important discipline in oncology as molecular tumor characteristics will increasingly determine targeted clinical cancer care. In recent years, many technological advances have taken place that contributed to the development of molecular pathology. However, attention to ethical aspects has been lagging behind as illustrated by the lack of publications or professional guidelines. Existing guidelines or publications on ethical aspects of DNA sequencing are mostly aimed at germline or tumor sequencing in clinical genetics or biomedical research settings. As a result, large differences have been demonstrated in the process of tumor sequencing analysis between laboratories. In this perspective we discuss the ethical issues to consider in molecular pathology by following the process of tumor DNA sequencing analysis from the preanalytical to postanalytical phase. For the successful and responsible use of DNA sequencing in clinical cancer care, several moral requirements must be met, for example, those related to the interpretation and returning of genetic results, informed consent, and the retrospective as well as future use of genetic data for biomedical research. Many ethical issues are new to pathology or more stringent than in current practice because DNA sequencing could yield sensitive and potentially relevant data, such as clinically significant unsolicited findings. The context of molecular pathology is unique and complex, but many issues are similar to those applicable to clinical genetics. As such, existing scholarship in this discipline may be translated to molecular pathology with some adaptations and could serve as a basis for guideline development. For responsible use and further development of clinical cancer care, we recommend that pathologists take responsibility for the adequate use of molecular analyses and be fully aware and capable of dealing with the diverse, complex, and challenging aspects of tumor DNA sequencing, including its ethical issues. Copyright © 2018 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2018 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: The use of genomic sequencing techniques is increasingly being incorporated into mainstream health care. However, there is a lack of agreement on how "incidental findings" (IFs) should be managed and a dearth of research on patient perspectives., Methods: In-depth qualitative interviews were carried out with 31 patients undergoing genomic sequencing at a regional genetics service in England. Interviews explored decisions around IFs and were comparatively analyzed with published recommendations from the literature., Results: Thirteen participants opted to receive all IFs from their sequence, 12 accepted some and rejected others, while six participants refused all IFs. The key areas from the literature, (a) genotype/phenotype correlation, (b) seriousness of the condition, and (c) implications for biological relatives, were all significant; however, patients drew on a broader range of social and cultural information to make their decisions., Conclusion: This study highlights the range of costs and benefits for patients of receiving IFs from a genomic sequence. While largely positive views toward the dissemination of genomic data were reported, ambivalence surrounding genetic responsibility and its associated behaviors (e.g., duty to inform relatives) was reported by both IF decliners and accepters, suggesting a need to further explore patient perspectives on this highly complex topic area., (© 2018 The Authors. Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Genomic medicine is rapidly evolving, particularly in the domain of reproduction. Population carrier screening for a range of disorders is becoming possible using whole genome/exome sequencing. However, very little is known about the views of genetically disabled adults toward selective reproduction., Methods: Forty-three in-depth qualitative interviews were carried out with adults living with different types of genetic condition, recruited through support groups and clinics. Interviews covered participants' experiences of their condition and their views toward genetic intervention in reproduction. Thematic analysis of the data using NVivo 11 was undertaken, and participants were assigned categories as either supporting, not-supporting, or having ambivalent views toward selective reproduction., Results: The majority of participants (65%) expressed either disapproval of, or held ambivalent views toward, selective reproduction. Key reasons for non-support included regarding genetic impairment as part of personal identity and the prioritization of social and environmental barrier removal. Key reasons for support of selective reproduction included negative and externalizing attitudes toward genetic impairment and a belief in the importance of informed reproductive decision-making., Conclusion: The degree to which participants identified with their impairment, more so than how they valued it, was significant in determining attitudes toward selective reproduction. Those who supported genetic screening viewed their impairment as separate to themselves, while participants who considered their impairment as integral to their identity were most likely to report ambivalent or negative attitudes. Policymakers and stakeholders considering the role of genetic carrier screening panels might usefully engage with adults affected by heritable disease as well as disability identity politics when considering the acceptability and social impact of genetic screening programs., (© 2018 The Authors. Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: Ethical and counseling challenges are expected with the introduction of prenatal whole exome sequencing. In this study, we describe specific challenges identified through the UNC-Chapel Hill Prenatal Exome Sequencing Study., Methods: Participants were a subset of women participating in the fetal exome study, which has enrolled 73 mother-father-fetus trios in pregnancies diagnosed with structural anomalies and normal standard genetic testing results. In this descriptive study, cases were reviewed by members of the research team, including a bioethicist, to identify counseling challenges. Illustrative cases were chosen by group consensus., Results: Four illustrative cases were identified for further analysis. Challenges included need for adequate counseling and informed consent, challenges in prenatal variant interpretation, performing prenatal diagnosis in subsequent pregnancies, inability to identify a genetic etiology, and identifying parental secondary findings., Conclusion: Our study illustrates several challenges identified in an ongoing prenatal exome study. While genomic medicine is a powerful tool for prenatal diagnosis, it is important that clinicians understand the ethical implications and parental perceptions of this testing modality., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)