Search

Abstract: It has been frequently acknowledged that results of predictive genetic tests may have implications for relatives as well as for the individual client. Ethicists have noted that an individual’s right to know her genetic risk may conflict with a relative’s right not to know this risk. It is hardly recognised, however, that family members may have a role in the production of test results as well. This article reconstructs the actual process of predictive BRCA-testing in the Netherlands, with a special focus on the roles assigned to clients and families and the expectations about family relationships inscribed in this practice. Fieldwork was carried out in an outpatient clinic for clinical genetics in an academic hospital. Data collection included 11 interviews with members of families, observations of counselling interviews between research participants and their clinical geneticist, and interviews with the 2 clinical geneticists involved in the consultations. It compares this process to the American practice of BRCA-testing. Whereas Dutch practice presupposes active involvement of diseased relatives in the testing process, American practice constitutes the client primarily as an independent individual who may or may not decide to involve her relatives. Moreover, Dutch clients are expected to have a harmonious, open and communicative relationship with their relatives. The American client, in contrast, is supposed to have more distant family relationships. It is argued that an interpretation of these differences in terms of ‘the right to know’ and ‘the right not to know’ misses the point, because the production of informative test results depends on the cooperation of relatives. The differences between Dutch and American practice are more adequately interpreted as implying a preference for unambiguous test results versus a preference for individual independence. The paper shows what is lost when opting for one value at the cost of another and discusses several alternatives to circumvent the value conflict at stake. By opening up for discussion the values implicit in BRCA-testing practices, the paper aims to contribute to debates on the overall desirability of these practices. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Socioeconomic inequalities in childhood Body Mass Index (BMI) are becoming increasingly more pronounced across the world. Although countries differ in the direction and strength of these inequalities, cross-national comparative research on this topic is rare. This paper draws on harmonized longitudinal cohort data from four wealthy countries—Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US)—to 1) map cross-country differences in the magnitude of socioeconomic inequalities in childhood BMI, and 2) to examine cross-country differences in the role of three energy-balance-related behaviors—physical activity, screen time, and breakfast consumption—in explaining these inequalities. Children were aged 5–7 at our first timepoint and were followed up at age 8–11. We used data from the German National Educational Panel Study, the Dutch Generation R study, the UK Millennium Cohort Study and the US Early Childhood Longitudinal-Kindergarten Study. All countries revealed significant inequalities in childhood BMI. The US stood out in having the largest inequalities. Overall, inequalities between children with low versus medium educated parents were smaller than those between children with high versus medium educated parents. The role of energy-balance-related behaviors in explaining inequalities in BMI was surprisingly consistent. Across countries, physical activity did not, while screen time and breakfast consumption did play a role. The only exception was that breakfast consumption did not play a role in the US. Cross-country differences emerged in the relative contribution of each behavior in explaining inequalities in BMI: Breakfast consumption was most important in the UK, screen time explained most in Germany and the US, and breakfast consumption and screen time were equally important in the Netherlands. Our findings suggest that what constitutes the most effective policy intervention differs across countries and that these should target both children from medium as well as low educated families. • All countries showed substantial socioeconomic inequalities in childhood BMI. • In all countries, inequalities in BMI steepen over course of primary school. • Protective factors among the most advantaged seem to mainly drive inequalities. • Across most countries, underlying mechanisms for inequalities in BMI are similar. • The relative contribution of each mechanism to BMI inequalities differs per country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]