Search

Despite its clinical value, cascade genetic testing (CGT) in hereditary cancer syndromes remains underutilized for a number of reasons, including ineffective family communication of genetic risk information. Therefore, alternative strategies are being explored to improve CGT uptake rates; one such strategy is direct contact with at-risk relatives by healthcare professionals with proband consent. It is unclear how Italian laws and regulations pertaining to CGT-including the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)-should be understood and implemented in the context of such alternative strategies. The authors constructed a hypothetical case about CGT, reviewed laws and regulations on informed consent, privacy, and the right not to know, and analyzed how those laws and regulations might apply to different communicative strategies relevant to the case and aimed at supporting CGT. A constitutionally consistent reading of Italian law and of the GDPR, an integral part of the Italian privacy framework, suggests that multiple communicative approaches may be legally permissible in Italy to support the CGT process. This includes direct contact by healthcare professionals with proband consent, provided certain conditions are met. Understanding the effectiveness of such approaches in improving CGT uptake will require further research efforts., Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

Background: Somatic and germline genetic alterations are significant drivers of cancer. Increasing integration of new technologies which profile these alterations requires timely, equitable and high-quality genetic counselling to facilitate accurate diagnoses and informed decision-making by patients and their families in preventive and clinical settings. This article aims to provide an overview of genetic counselling legislation and practice across European Union (EU) Member States to serve as a foundation for future European recommendations and action., Methods: National legislative databases of all 27 Member States were searched using terms relevant to genetic counselling, translated as appropriate. Interviews with relevant experts from each Member State were conducted to validate legislative search results and provide detailed insights into genetic counselling practice in each country., Results: Genetic counselling is included in national legislative documents of 22 of 27 Member States, with substantial variation in legal mechanisms and prescribed details (i.e. the 'who, what, when and where' of counselling). Practice is similarly varied. Workforce capacity (25 of 27 Member States) and genetic literacy (all Member States) were common reported barriers. Recognition and/or better integration of genetic counsellors and updated legislation and were most commonly noted as the 'most important change' which would improve practice., Conclusions: This review highlights substantial variability in genetic counselling across EU Member States, as well as common barriers notwithstanding this variation. Future recommendations and action should focus on addressing literacy and capacity challenges through legislative, regulatory and/or strategic approaches at EU, national, regional and/or local levels., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.)

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome is an autosomal dominant cancer susceptibility syndrome mainly due to variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. Patients presenting with BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutations have a lifetime risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer (80% and 40%, respectively). Genetic testing to explore the predisposition to develop cancer represents a pivotal factor in such cases, and this review wants to explore the main implications in terms of medicolegal liability and insurance issues. Medicolegal issues related to these diagnostic processes include: (a) failure to recommend the test; (b) failure to properly interpret the test; (c) failure to correctly translate results into clinical practice; (d) lack of informed consent; and (e) failure to refer patients to specialized genetic counseling. Such errors may lead to compensation since the legal burden inherent in the efficacy of prophylactic interventions is a proof that requires the so-called 'preponderance of the evidence'. Concerning insurance issues, the carriers of such alleles without cancer are healthy because the genetic predisposition is not a disease per se but represents a (relevant) health risk. However, disclosure of these conditions can be impelled by insurers. It can lead to so-called 'genetic discrimination' because insurance companies might use genetic information to limit insurance options or increase their costs. Many private and public healthcare funders do not cover risk reducing surgeries, even when recommended as part of a risk reduction management plan for BRCA gene mutation carriers. Here, positions on these matters from different high income countries are discussed, stressing the importance of a common supranational or international regulatory framework to reach a trade-off between the economic interests of insurers and the rights of carriers not to disclose extremely sensitive information., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Genomic sequencing has emerged as a powerful tool with significant implications for patients and their relatives, however, empirical evidence suggests that effective dissemination of risk information within families remains a challenge. Policy responses to address this issue vary across countries, with Belgium notably lacking specific regulations governing nondisclosure of genetic risk. In this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians from Belgian clinical genetics centers to gain insight into their perspectives on policy approaches to the disclosure of genetic risk within families. Using real-world examples of legislation and court rulings from France, Australia, and the UK, we explored clinician viewpoints on the roles and responsibilities of both patients and clinicians in the family communication process. Clinicians expressed confusion regarding what was legally permissible regarding contacting at-risk relatives. While there was a consensus among participants that patients have a responsibility to inform their at-risk relatives, participants were hesitant to support the legal enforcement of this duty. Clinicians mostly recognized some responsibility to at-risk relatives, but the extent of this responsibility was a subject of division. Our findings highlight the need for a comprehensive policy that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of clinicians and patients to inform at-risk relatives. Furthermore, the study underscores the practical challenges clinicians face in supporting patients through the complex process of family communication, suggesting a need for additional resources and the exploration of alternative approaches to communication., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

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.)

Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) is a reproductive technology that, in the course of in vitro fertilization (IVF), allows prospective parents to select their future offspring based on genetic characteristics. PGT could be seen as an exercise of reproductive liberty, thus potentially raising significant socioethical and legal controversy. In this review, we examine-from a comparative perspective-variations in policy approaches to the regulation of PGT. We draw on a sample of 19 countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States) to provide a global landscape of the spectrum of policy and legislative approaches (e.g., restrictive to permissive, public vs. private models). We also explore central socioethical and policy issues and contentious applications, including permissibility criteria (e.g., medical necessity), nonmedical sex selection, and reproductive tourism. Finally, we further outline genetic counseling requirements across policy approaches., (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.

The rapidly evolving genetic technologies that are available to patients and obstetrician-gynecologists have transformed the practice of clinical medicine. From cell-free DNA screening technologies in pregnancy to expanded carrier screening and hereditary cancer gene panels, obstetrician-gynecologists often are faced with questions about their legal responsibilities regarding genetic information as well as the legal ramifications of this information for their patients.The Committee on Genetics has constructed the following case studies to highlight some of the legal issues an obstetrician-gynecologist may encounter when performing genetic testing. These cases do not cover the breadth of legal issues affecting clinical genetics, but rather they illustrate certain legal concepts and principles as well as key pieces of legislation that are pertinent to clinical care. These case descriptions are not intended to serve as legal advice. Obstetrician-gynecologists are strongly encouraged to seek expert legal assistance to resolve questions involving legal rights or responsibilities.

The rapidly evolving genetic technologies that are available to patients and obstetrician-gynecologists have transformed the practice of clinical medicine. From cell-free DNA screening technologies in pregnancy to expanded carrier screening and hereditary cancer gene panels, obstetrician-gynecologists often are faced with questions about their legal responsibilities regarding genetic information as well as the legal ramifications of this information for their patients.The Committee on Genetics has constructed the following case studies to highlight some of the legal issues an obstetrician-gynecologist may encounter when performing genetic testing. These cases do not cover the breadth of legal issues affecting clinical genetics, but rather they illustrate certain legal concepts and principles as well as key pieces of legislation that are pertinent to clinical care. These case descriptions are not intended to serve as legal advice. Obstetrician-gynecologists are strongly encouraged to seek expert legal assistance to resolve questions involving legal rights or responsibilities.

This review will explore two legal issues in genetic counseling: genetic discrimination and the duty to warn. It emphasizes the complexity and variability of federal and state genetic nondiscrimination protections in the United States and how the many gaps in such protections may affect people pursuing genetic testing. The limited law addressing legal obligations genetic counselors owe at-risk relatives likely does not require counselors to warn relatives directly about genetic risks. Whether it permits them to make such disclosures, however, is more uncertain and may depend on the jurisdiction., (Copyright © 2020 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; all rights reserved.)

Aim: Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests (GT) have created controversy regarding their risks and benefits. In view of recent regulatory developments, this article aims to explore the attitudes of European clinical geneticists toward the oversight of DTC GT. Materials & methods: Fifteen semi-structured interviews were performed with clinical geneticists based in ten European countries. The transcripts were thematically analysized in an iterative process. Results & conclusion: Respondents strongly supported quality standards for DTC GT equal to those applied within the healthcare setting. Despite participants unanimously considering the involvement of healthcare professionals to be important, mandatory medical supervision was controversial. In this regard, promoting education and truth-in-advertising was considered as being key in maintaining a balance between protecting consumers and promoting their autonomy.

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.

Patients and research participants have indicated that privacy of their genetic test results is an important concern, particularly with respect to insurance coverage. Internists and other physicians whose patients ask about legal protections for information generated by genome sequencing for clinical purposes can provide both reassurance and caution. Protections for medical information in general, as well as laws in some states that provide additional safeguards for genetic data, should reassure patients that this information will remain private. Patients themselves will need to weigh the risks versus the benefits of generating genomic data in deciding whether to undergo exome sequencing.

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.

The use of genetic and genomic testing is becoming more widespread in healthcare and more inherited explanations for family history of diseases or conditions are being uncovered. Currently, relevant genetic information is not always used in the care of family members who might benefit from it, because of health professionals' fears of inappropriately breaching another family member's confidence. Such examples are likely to increase as testing possibilities expand. Here we present the case for use of familial information in the care and treatment of family members. We argue that whilst a clinical diagnosis in person A is confidential, the discovery of a familial factor that led to this diagnosis should be available for use in depersonalised form by health professionals to inform the testing and clinical care of other family members. The possibility of such use should be made clear in clinical practice at the time of initial testing, but should not require consent from the person in whom the familial factor was first identified. We call for further debate on these questions in the wake of high profile non-disclosure of genetic information cases, and forthcoming Data Protection legislation changes.

The duty to warn genetically at-risk relatives of patients is one of the most misunderstood legal and ethical issues affecting clinical genetics. The legal doctrines are often associated with three state appellate court cases beginning in the mid-1990s. Since the HIPAA Privacy Rule went into effect in 2003, the duty to warn must be accomplished by warning the patient of the genetic nature of a diagnosed disorder or genetic risk and the necessity of warning at-risk relatives. Health-care providers are neither required nor permitted to warn at-risk relatives without the consent of their patients. Having warnings issued by the patient most closely aligns with traditional ethical principles and the interests of the parties. Physicians and other health-care providers can assist their patients by preparing jargon-free explanations of the genetic risk and offering consultation or referral services. In the future, the need for warnings is less likely to be triggered by diagnoses and more likely to be based on predictive information derived from genome sequencing and other technologies and data sources.

Many neurogenetic conditions are inherited and therefore diagnosis of a patient will have implications for the patient's relatives and can raise ethical issues. Predictive genetic testing offers asymptomatic relatives the opportunity to determine their risk status for a neurogenetic condition, and professional guidelines emphasize patients' autonomy and informed, voluntary decision making. Beneficence and nonmaleficence both need to be considered when making decisions about disclosure and nondisclosure of genetic information and test results. There can be disclosure concerns and challenges in determining whose autonomy to prioritize when a patient makes a genetic testing decision that can reveal the genetic status of a relative (e.g., testing an adult child when the at-risk parent has not been tested). Ethical issues are prominent when genetic testing for neurogenetic conditions is requested prenatally, on minors, adoptees, adult children at 25% risk, and for individuals with psychiatric issues or cognitive impairment. Neurogenetic conditions can result in cognitive decline which can affect decisional capacity and lead to ethical challenges with decision making, informed consent, and determining the patient's ability to comprehend test results. The ethical implications of genetic testing and emerging issues, including direct-to-consumer genetic testing, disclosure of secondary findings from genomic sequencing, and use of apolipoprotein E testing in clinical and research settings, are also discussed. Resources for information about genetic testing practice guidelines, insurance laws, and directories of genetics clinics are included., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

In 2013, twenty-two states enacted seventy provisions restricting access to abortion. The legislation restricted access to abortions by instituting more regulations on providers and facilities, by prohibiting abortion prior to viability, by restricting funding available to patients and by requiring patients to wait a mandatory time period before having a procedure. Genetic counselors are trained to provide unbiased, comprehensive information in a non-directive style in order to allow patients to exercise their reproductive freedom. We developed a survey of 37 questions for genetic counselors to gauge the potential impact these provisions will have on their ability to be a patient advocate. A total of 286 individuals completed the survey; however, not all respondents answered all questions. Qualitative questions complemented quantitative survey entries, allowing respondents to input thoughts and examples. Results indicate genetic counselors in all regions share similar professional opinions about the provisions. More genetic counselors in the South and Midwest noticed changes impacting patients since the provisions have been enacted. These regional differences correlate with the location of states that have seem the greatest increase in antiabortion provisions.

With the increasing awareness of genetic contributions to disease in Canada, the availability of and demand for genetic testing has soared. Genetic counseling is becoming a recognized and rapidly growing (yet unregulated) health profession in Canada. We hypothesized that the potential risk for harm to the public posed by genetic counseling practice in the province of Ontario is sufficient to consider regulation. The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHTLC) sets criteria (both primary and secondary) to identify health professional bodies that meet the threshold for regulation in the province. We developed a survey based on the MOHTLC criteria to determine if genetic counselors meet the primary criteria to be considered for health professions regulation in Ontario. We surveyed 120 Ontario genetic counselors about their clinical practice and perceptions of risk for harm to the public. Results indicate that Ontario genetic counselors are highly independent in their clinical practice and are involved in patient care activities, clinical judgement and decision-making that have the potential to harm patients. In particular, cancer genetic counselors were identified as a cohort that practices with relatively high autonomy and low supervision. In summary, our study indicates that genetic counseling practice in Ontario meets the primary criteria to be considered for regulation.

This comment analyses the recent High Court's decision in ABC v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust. In this case, the court struck out a claim brought by a patient's daughter against her father's doctors for their failure to warn her of his hereditary disease. The claimant argued that the doctors' failure caused her harm and violated her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is argued in this comment that the judge should have accepted the claimant's application., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Advances in genetic testing and the availability of such testing in pregnancy allows prospective parents to test their future child for adult-onset conditions. This ability raises several complex ethical issues. Prospective parents have reproductive rights to obtain information about their fetus. This information may or may not alter pregnancy management. These rights can be in conflict with the rights of the future individual, who will be denied the right to elect or decline testing. This paper highlights the complexity of these issues, details discussions that went into the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Public Policy Task Force's development of the Prenatal testing for Adult-Onset Conditions position statement adopted in November 2014, and cites relevant literature on this topic through December 2015. Issues addressed include parental rights and autonomy, rights of the future child, the right not to know, possible adverse effects on childhood and the need for genetic counseling. This paper will serve as a reference to genetic counselors and healthcare professionals when faced with this situation in clinical practice.

This paper considers whether existing law could potentially be used to criminalize the transmission of genetic disease. The paper argues that even if an offence could be made out, the criminal law should not be involved in this context for many reasons, including the need to protect reproductive liberty and pregnant women's rights. The paper also examines whether there might be scope for civil claims between reproductive partners for a 'failure to warn' of potential genetic harm and argues there are strong policy grounds for resisting such claims. If such a duty were to exist, there might, in the future, be scope for a child to bring a claim under the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability Act) 1976. Such a claim could be for the failure by the child's father to warn her mother, which in turn led to the loss of opportunity to have treatment in utero which could have prevented the disability. It is suggested that the same arguments which supported granting maternal immunity under the Act would also support paternal immunity and that, therefore the issue of the lack of paternal immunity under the Act should be revisited.

Cancer risk assessment, genetic counseling and genetic testing have experienced advances and changes over the past two decades due to improved technology, legal movements to protect those at an increased risk for cancer due to genetics, as well as advances in detection, prevention and treatment. This brief article will provide a summary of these advances over three eras of cancer genetics: pre-discovery of the more common high impact genes, namely BRCA1/BRCA2 and the mismatch repair genes associated with Lynch syndrome; the time during which the genes were being discovered; and current day.

Since the dawn of prenatal testing in the 1970s, concerns have been raised over its administration to respect a mother's autonomy as well as the expressive critique against those with the tested-for condition. Advances in prenatal testing have made it such that more mothers than ever are given a test result of Down syndrome, yet are not provided the rest of the information recommended by professional guidelines. In response, first federal legislation and then, increasingly, state legislation is requiring that this information be provided to expectant mothers. Though receiving broad bipartisan support in passage, some of the statutes have received criticism. These public policy measures will be surveyed and evaluated as to their relative merits and limitations.

Each year, thousands of pregnant women learn of fetal abnormalities through prenatal genetic analysis. This discovery--made after a woman has initially declined to exercise her right to abort an unwanted pregnancy—raises the difficult and heart-wrenching question of whether to terminate on genetic grounds. Women considering a genetic abortion rely on information and support from health care providers to assist them in making their choice. Though intended to be objective and nondirective, the support women receive frequently provides them within complete and incomprehensible information having the effect of encouraging them to abort genetically anomalous fetuses. As a result, genetic terminations--which cause severe and long-standing psychological impacts such as pathological grief, depression and post-traumatic stress—are often the result of something other than a fully informed choice.Congress and eleven states have recognized the importance of better informing choice by passing legislation aimed at providing clearer and more balanced information to expectant mothers learning of fetal genetic abnormalities. But existing legislative remedies do not adequately address this problem, and this inadequacy will become more pronounced in future years as increases in access to prenatal genetic analysis further stretch the capabilities of the available support services.This Article describes the unique characteristics of terminations for a fetal abnormality, their troubling and persistent psychological impacts,and the reasons why they will become more common in future years. It then offers proposals for how to reconfigure the prenatal genetic counseling landscape in order to reduce the incidence of genetic terminations based on incomplete or misleading information, thereby alleviating their distinct psychological costs. Its overall objective is to ensure that women learning of prenatal genetic abnormalities have access to complete and comprehensible information prior to making their decision and adequate support whether or not they choose to terminate.

Since the early 1970s, the ethical norm governing counselors involved in testing and screening for genetic conditions related to reproduction has been strict neutrality. Counseling about reproductive genetics was to be patient centered but nondirective. Many advocates for people with Down syndrome believe that high abortion rates following a diagnosis of this condition show an unfounded bias against those with Down syndrome. These advocates have succeeded in enacting federal and state legislation that requires women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome to receive positive information about the condition, thereby ending the nominal goal of value-neutral counseling and setting the stage for further normative shifts in clinical reproductive genetics as counseling expands because of cell-free testing.

This article describes a new prenatal genetic test that is painless, early, and increasingly available. State legislatures have reacted by prohibiting abortion for reason of fetal sex or of fetal diagnosis and managing genetic counseling. This article explores these legislative responses and considers how physicians and genetic counselors currently communicate post-testing options. The article then examines the challenges ahead for genetic counseling, particularly in light of the troubling grip of abortion politics on conversations about prenatal diagnosis., (© 2015 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.)

Introduction: Over the last few years, many private companies are advertising direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT), mostly with no or only minor clinical utility and validity of tests and without genetic counselling. International professional community does not approve provision of DTC GT and situation in some EU countries has been analysed already. The aim of our study was to analyse current situation in the field of DTC GT in Slovenia and related legal and ethical issues., Materials and Methods: Information was retrieved through internet search, performed independently by two authors, structured according to individual private company and the types of offered genetic testing., Results: Five private companies and three Health Insurance Companies offer DTC GT and it is provided without genetic counselling. Available tests include testing for breast cancer, tests with other health-related information (complex diseases, drug responses) and other tests (nutrigenetic, ancestry, paternity). National legislation is currently being developed and Council of Experts in Medical Genetics has issued an opinion about Genetic Testing and Commercialization of Genetic Tests in Slovenia., Conclusions: Despite the fact that Slovenia has signed the Additional protocol to the convention on human rights and biomedicine, concerning genetic testing for health purposes, DTC GT in Slovenia is present and against all international recommendations. There is lack of or no medical supervision, clinical validity and utility of tests and inappropriate genetic testing of minors is available. There is urgent need for regulation of ethical, legal, and social aspects. National legislation on DTC GT is being prepared.

Noninvasive prenatal genetic testing (NIPT) for chromosomal aneuploidy involving the analysis of cell-free fetal DNA became commercially available in 2011. The low false-positive rate of NIPT, which reduces unnecessary prenatal invasive diagnostic procedures, has led to broad clinician and patient adoption. We discuss the ethical, legal, and social issues raised by rapid and global dissemination of NIPT. The number of women using NIPT is anticipated to expand, and the number of conditions being tested for will continue to increase as well, raising concerns about the routinization of testing and negative impacts on informed decision making. Ensuring that accurate and balanced information is available to all pregnant women and that access to NIPT is equitable will require policy guidance from regulators, professional societies, and payers. Empirical evidence about stakeholders' perspectives and experiences will continue to be essential in guiding policy development so that advances in NIPT can be used effectively and appropriately to improve prenatal care.

The passage of the Genetic Information Non Discrimination Act (GINA) was hailed as a pivotal achievement that was expected to calm the fears of both patients and research participants about the potential misuse of genetic information. However, 6 years later, patient and provider awareness of legal protections at both the federal and state level remains discouragingly low, thereby, limiting their potential effectiveness. The increasing demand for genetic testing will expand the number of individuals and families who could benefit from obtaining accurate information about the privacy and anti-discriminatory protections that GINA and other laws extend. In this paper we describe legal protections that are applicable to individuals seeking genetic counseling, review the literature on patient and provider fears of genetic discrimination and examine their awareness and understandings of existing laws, and summarize how genetic counselors currently discuss genetic discrimination. We then present three genetic counseling cases to illustrate issues of genetic discrimination and provide relevant information on applicable legal protections. Genetic counselors have an unprecedented opportunity, as well as the professional responsibility, to disseminate accurate knowledge about existing legal protections to their patients. They can strengthen their effectiveness in this role by achieving a greater knowledge of current protections including being able to identify specific steps that can help protect genetic information.

Misattributed paternity or 'false' paternity is when a man is wrongly thought, by himself and possibly by others, to be the biological father of a child. Nowadays, because of the progression of genetics and genomics the possibility of finding misattributed paternity during familial genetic testing has increased. In contrast to other medical information, which pertains primarily to individuals, information obtained by genetic testing and/or pedigree analysis necessarily has implications for other biologically related members in the family. Disclosing or not a misattributed paternity has a number of different biological and social consequences for the people involved. Such an issue presents important ethical and deontological challenges. The debate centres on whether or not to inform the family and, particularly, whom in the family, about the possibility that misattributed paternity might be discovered incidentally, and whether or not it is the duty of the healthcare professional (HCP) to disclose the results and to whom. In this paper, we consider the different perspectives and reported problems, and analyse their cultural, ethical and legal dimensions. We compare the position of HCPs from an Italian and British point of view, particularly their role in genetic counselling. We discuss whether the Oviedo Convention of the Council of Europe (1997) can be seen as a basis for enriching the debate.

SNP microarrays are capable of detecting regions of homozygosity (ROH) which can suggest parental relatedness. This study was designed to describe pre- and post-test counseling practices of genetics professionals regarding ROH, explore perceived comfort and ethical concerns in the follow-up of such results, demonstrate awareness of laws surrounding duty to report consanguinity and incest, and allow respondents to share their personal experiences with results suggesting a parental relationship. A 35 question survey was administered to 240 genetic counselors and geneticists who had ordered or counseled for SNP microarray. The results are presented using descriptive statistics. There was variation in both pre- and post-test counseling practices of genetics professionals. Twenty-five percent of respondents reported pre-test counseling that ROH can indicate parental relatedness. The most commonly reported ethical concern was disclosure of findings suggesting parental relatedness to parents of the patient; only 48.4% reported disclosing parental relatedness when indicated. Fifty-seven percent felt comfortable receiving results suggesting parental consanguinity while 17% felt comfortable receiving results suggesting parental incest. Twenty percent of respondents were extremely/moderately familiar with the laws about duty to report incest. Personal experiences in post-test counseling included both parental acknowledgement and denial of relatedness. This study highlights the differences in genetics professionals' pre- and post-test counseling practices, comfort, and experiences surrounding parental relatedness suggested by SNP microarray results. It identifies a need for professional organizations to offer guidance to genetics professionals about how to respond to and counsel for molecular results suggesting parental consanguinity or incest., (© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

In the last decade, an overwhelming number of genetic aberrations have been discovered and linked to the development of treatment for cancer. With the rapid advancement of next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques, it is expected that large-scale DNA analyses will increasingly be used to select patients for treatment with specific anticancer agents. Personalizing cancer treatment has many advantages, but sequencing germline DNA as reference material for interpreting cancer genetics may have consequences that extend beyond providing cancer care for an individual patient. In sequencing germline DNA, mutations may be encountered that are associated with increased susceptibility not only to hereditary cancer syndromes but also to other diseases; in those cases, disclosing germline data could be clinically relevant and even lifesaving. In the context of personal autonomy, it is necessary to develop an ethical and legal framework for how to deal with identified hereditary disease susceptibilities and how to return the data to patients and their families. Because clear legislation is lacking, we need to establish guidelines on disclosure of genetic information and, in the process, we need to balance privacy issues with the potential advantages and drawbacks of sharing genetic data with patients and their relatives. Importantly, a strong partnership with patients is critical for understanding how to maximize the translation of genetic information for the benefit of patients with cancer. This review discusses the ethical, legal, and counseling issues surrounding disclosure of genetic information generated by NGS to patients with cancer and their relatives. We also provide a framework for returning these genetic results by proposing a design for a qualified disclosure policy.

In France, bioethics norms have emerged in close interaction with medical practices. The first bioethics laws were adopted in 1994, with provisions for updates in 2004 and most recently, in 2011. As in other countries, bioethics laws indirectly refer to certain fundamental values. The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, I shall briefly describe the construction of the French bioethics laws and the values they are meant to protect. Secondly, I will show that the practice of clinical ethics, as reported in a few studies on ART, living organ donation and PGD, challenge the role attributed to doctors as "gatekeepers" of those fundamental values. Thirdly, I will suggest that the quality of medical practices would improve if the law focused on strengthening the tacit pact between doctors and patients, rather than putting doctors in charge of enforcing societal values. Doctors, for their part, would limit their role to what they can do best: provide sufficient patient support and safe care. Against those who argue that we should dispense with bioethics laws altogether, I hold that the laws are useful in order to limit the development of abusive practices. However, a new legislative approach should be adopted which would a positive presumption in favor of patients' requests.

It is inevitable that neonatal genetic information will be communicated to parents and a potential for psychiatric injury exists where the communication is negligent. An important question in this regard is whether a health-care provider may owe a duty of care to parents when communicating accurate genetic information, or whether the courts might treat it as merely the receipt of distressing news, which hitherto attracts no liability in English Tort Law. The important role of genetic counselling in this context will likely be determinative in deciding whether communicating accurate genetic information is actionable because it arguably distinguishes the parent-physician relationship from that of messenger-recipient. If communication is accepted as being something more than the receipt of distressing news and is capable of causing 'shock', then parents will need to establish themselves as either primary or secondary victims if claims are to be reconciled with the Alcock paradigm. Claims by parents as secondary victims will be unlikely to succeed because the neonate does not fulfil the role of primary victim, although parents may be owed a duty as elevated primary victims as a result of the lack of an immediate victim. Elevating claimants to primary victim status is not without criticism and may serve to further complicate a difficult area of tort law. Alternatively, it may be open to parents to demonstrate that a duty exists subsequent to an assumption of responsibility, as the provision of genetic counselling during and after neonatal screening is indicative of health-care providers assuming responsibility for the parents' mental health. If parents are able to establish that a duty of care exists, then success of their claims will be determined by reference to breach and causation. The potential difficulties and solutions, particularly with regard to causation, are also briefly considered. It is suggested that breach will likely be determined by reference to a responsible body of medical opinion, while it is proposed that the courts adopt a material increase analysis when assessing causation.