Search

Progress in understanding childhood disease using next-generation sequencing (NGS) portends vast improvements in the nature and quality of patient care. However, ethical questions surrounding the disclosure of incidental findings (IFs) persist, as NGS and other novel genomic technologies become the preferred tool for clinical genetic testing. Thus, the need for comprehensive management plans and multidisciplinary discussion on the return of IFs in pediatric research has never been more immediate. The aim of this study is to explore the views of investigators concerning the return of IFs in the pediatric oncology research context. Our findings reveal at least four contextual themes underlying the ethics of when, and how, IFs could be disclosed to participants and their families: clinical significance of the result, respect for individual, scope of professional responsibilities, and implications for the healthcare/research system. Moreover, the study proposes two action items toward anticipatory governance of IF in genetic research with children. The need to recognize the multiplicity of contextual factors in determining IF disclosure practices, particularly as NGS increasingly becomes a centerpiece in genetic research broadly, is heightened when children are involved. Sober thought should be given to the possibility of discovering IF, and to proactive discussions about disclosure considering the realities of young participants, their families, and the investigators who recruit them.

Growing discussion on the use of whole-genome or exome sequencing (WG/ES) in newborn screening (NBS) has raised concerns regarding the generation of incidental information on millions of infants annually. It is unknown whether integrating WG/ES would alter public expectations regarding participation in universal NBS. We assessed public willingness to participate in NBS using WG/ES compared with current NBS. Our secondary objective was to assess the public's beliefs regarding a parental responsibility to participate in WG/ES-based NBS compared with current NBS. We examined self-reported attitudes regarding willingness to participate in NBS using a cross-sectional national survey of Canadian residents recruited through an internet panel, reflective of the Canadian population by age, gender and region. Our results showed that fewer respondents would be willing to participate in NBS using WG/ES compared with NBS using current technologies (80 vs 94%, P<0.001), or perceived a parental responsibility to participate in WG/ES-based NBS vs current NBS (30 vs 48%, P<0.001). Our findings suggest that integrating WG/ES into NBS might reduce participation, and challenge the moral authority that NBS programmes rely upon to ensure population benefits. These findings point to the need for caution in the untargeted use of WG/ES in public health contexts.

While the importance of intrafamilial communication of hereditary cancer risk has been acknowledged, the factors that promote and act as barriers to patients disclosing their information to their families are complex and emerging. This raises the question: How are patients guided in practice to contemplate intrafamilial communication? Focusing on breast cancer, we conducted an exploratory study examining current resources supporting patients and health-care professionals, and isolated the messages surrounding intrafamilial communication of cancer risk. We find the duty for health-care professionals to counsel patients regarding intrafamilial communication is acknowledged to varying degrees by multiple actors in the cancer care delivery landscape, including health-care professional associations, health service organizations, and patient groups. A range of medical, psychosocial, and other factors underlying intrafamilial communication are acknowledged in messages to patients. Patients, however, are often referred to a single group of health-care professionals to discuss their diverse and complex needs. At the same time, messages aimed at patients appear to place the emphasis on barriers that could exist for patients contemplating intrafamilial communication, while highlighting the benefits families derive from such communication. Taken together, this points to a lack of coherence within materials directed to patients and suggests the need to do coordinated research among stakeholders to address two related issues: (1) determining who are the actors best positioned to send messages surrounding intrafamilial communication to patients and (2) addressing the content of messages conveyed in patient materials.

Personalized medicine promises that an individual's genetic information will be increasingly used to prioritize access to health care. Use of genetic information to inform medical decision making, however, raises questions as to whether such use could be inequitable. Using breast cancer genetic risk prediction models as an example, on the surface clinical use of genetic information is consistent with the tools provided by evidence-based medicine, representing a means to equitably distribute limited health-care resources. However, at present, given limitations inherent to the tools themselves, and the mechanisms surrounding their implementation, it becomes clear that reliance on an individual's genetic information as part of medical decision making could serve as a vehicle through which disparities are perpetuated under public and private health-care delivery models. The potential for inequities arising from using genetic information to determine access to health care has been rarely discussed. Yet, it raises legal and ethical questions distinct from those raised surrounding genetic discrimination in employment or access to private insurance. Given the increasing role personalized medicine is forecast to play in the provision of health care, addressing a broader view of what constitutes genetic discrimination, one that occurs along a continuum and includes inequitable access, will be needed during the implementation of new applications based on individual genetic profiles. Only by anticipating and addressing the potential for inequitable access to health care occurring from using genetic information will we move closer to realizing the goal of personalized medicine: to improve the health of individuals.

The genetic testing of minors within the direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing (GT) context has been given relatively little attention. The issue of testing healthy children for diseases that would only develop in adulthood raises many important ethical, legal and social issues. As genetic testing is now available outside of the traditional health care system, often without even the intermediate of a health care professional, we surveyed 37 DTC GT companies regarding their policies for testing in children. Although the response rate is relatively low (35%, 13/37), our findings reveal that a clear majority of companies do perform genetic testing in minors. As such, companies testing for adult onset diseases are acting in contradiction of established professional guidelines, which state, among others, that, for predictive genetic testing, the availability of therapeutic or preventive measures is necessary for testing to be performed in asymptomatic minors. The community of stakeholders in children's health care and genetic testing should, therefore, decide which standards need to be upheld by DTC GT companies and ensure that these are met.

The expansion of newborn screening (NBS) has been accompanied by debate about what benefits should be achieved and the role of parental discretion in their pursuit. The opportunity to inform parents of reproductive risks is among the most valued additional benefits gained through NBS, and assumes prominence where the primary goal of identifying a treatable condition is not assured. We reviewed 53 unique guidelines addressing prenatal, preconception and newborn screening to examine: (1) how generating reproductive risk information is construed as a benefit of screening; and (2) what conditions support the realization of this benefit. Most preconception and prenatal guidelines - where generating reproductive risk information is described as a primary benefit - required that individuals be given a 'cascade of choices', ensuring that each step in the decision-making process was well informed, from deciding to pursue information about reproductive risks to deciding how to manage them. With the exception of three guidelines, NBS policy infrequently attended to the potential for reproductive benefits; further, most guidelines that acknowledged such benefits construed voluntarism narrowly, without attention to the choices attendant on receiving reproductive risk information. This review suggests that prenatal and preconception guidance identifies a coherent framework to support the pursuit of reproductive benefits through population screening programmes. Interestingly, attention to reproductive benefits is increasing among NBS guidance, yet reflection on how such benefits ought to be pursued remains limited. Traditional norms for NBS may require reconsideration where the remit of screening exceeds the primary goal of clinical benefits for infants.

What factors influence intrafamilial communication of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) genetic risk information? Such information can have health implications for individuals who undergo genetic testing, but it can also have implications for their blood relatives. This literature review adopts an ecological model to summarize factors at the individual, familial, and community levels, as well as cross cutting factors relating to the complexity of HBOC genetic information and responsibilities that this information can give rise to. These factors are complex and may result in conflicting senses of responsibility. Faced with the task of communicating HBOC genetic information, the response may be to attempt to balance the potential negative impact of the information on the well-being of the informee (eg, can s/he handle this information?) against the potential health benefit that the knowledge could result in. This balancing represents an effort to reconcile conflicting approaches to protecting family members, and is a moral dilemma. This review sheds light on the factors that contribute to resolve this dilemma.