Search

Recently, public concerns have been expressed regarding the non-consented storage and secondary research uses of residual newborn bloodspot (RBS) samples. The purpose of this paper is to examine public responses to the storage and secondary uses of RBS that can be identified through analysis of media, legal cases, and documented public engagement activities. Coverage in the examined print media confirmed the importance of RBS to journalists and those people who expressed their concerns to these journalists. Several lawsuits, brought by parents concerned about the storage of newborn bloodspots, placed the practice of storing NBS into the spotlight. This resulted in controversial debates and the mandatory destruction of millions of samples. Analysis of public engagement activities across several jurisdictions indicated that across (inter)national boundaries there are common elements to what is perceived as inappropriate governance of RBS. Public concerns were grouped into five main themes: trust, transparency, confidentiality, ownership, and stigmatization/discrimination. The results of our analysis help to make a compelling case for placing citizens at the center of the debate and developing policy about the storage and secondary uses of newborn bloodspots. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The primary goal of breast and ovarian cancer screening is to minimize the cases of advanced disease and therefore its mortality rate. For hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, one method to reach this goal is to disseminate genetic risk information among family members. However, experience tells us that this information does not always reach family members in a timely manner, if at all. There are many moving parts to a decision to disclose genetic risk information within a family, and the lack of detail and cohesion in current guidelines do a disservice to hereditary breast cancer prevention. Utilizing legal, medical, and policy databases for literature, case law and policy documents relating to communication of genetic test results within families, as well as a consultative process with representative stakeholders, a points to consider has been developed to address a number of issues that might impact the ability and willingness of patients to inform family members of genetic risk. These include: what is 'genetic information'; who is the 'family'; why should patients inform their family members; and how should health professionals be involved in this process? This represents only an initial step towards fostering better communication within families. Additional research is needed to determine the best methods for encouraging this communication and motivations for disclosing or not and to promote the development of a solution, considering the complexity of human relationships and the probabilistic nature of genetic information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

More and more companies are advertising and selling genetic tests directly to consumers. Considering the ethical, legal, and psychological concerns surrounding genetic testing in minors, a study of companies’ websites was performed in order to describe and analyze their policies with respect to this issue. Of the 29 companies analyzed, 13 did not provide any information about this matter, eight companies allowed genetic testing upon parental request, four companies stated that their website is not directed to children under 18 years, and four companies suggested that in order to be tested, applicants should have reached the age of legal majority. If private companies offer genetic tests which are also offered in a clinical setting, can they be expected to adhere to the existing clinical guidelines with regard to these tests? If so, a certain ambiguity exists. Many companies are emphasizing in their disclaimers that their services are not medical services and should not be used as a basis for making medical decisions. Nonetheless, it remains debatable whether genetic testing in minors would be appropriate in this context. In line with the Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing, the Human Genetics Commission addressed the problem of non-consensual testing and recommended not to supply genetic testing services directly to those under the age of 16 or to those not able to make a competent decision regarding testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.European Journal of Human Genetics (2009) 17, 872–880; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.33; published online 25 March 2009 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses issues which were being raised by pharmacogenetic and genomic research about the acceptable degree of risk to which children may be exposed. It mentions that obtaining information about gene expression both in the organs affected by disease as well as in the organs involved in metabolizing and eliminating drugs may require more invasive procedures such as a biopsy to fully understand the drug effect.

Recent changes to the legal and ethical criteria that govern the inclusion of children and incompetent adults in genetic research are likely to lead to advances in research, but might leave the rights of the participants in this research in need of additional safeguards. Here, we discuss why this might be and propose policy considerations that could help to protect the rights of these particularly vulnerable groups of research participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses the results of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) in pediatric research. The author states that the release of the WGS information is refined by the fact that children develop as they grow older and hence become more autonomous in their decision-making abilities. He also mentions that professional guidance on communication of genetic information has preferred waiting until children can comprehend their nature and consequences including familial consequences.

The article offers information on the expansion of newborn screening in pursuit of the reproductive benefits in the U.S., Denmark, and Canada. Reproductive benefit has been considered secondary to identifying treatable condition in newborn screening within the consent or mandatory systems to receive information. Moreover, the author argues that pursuing health benefit through newborn screening program is not appropriate and may be best achieved through traditional antenatal screening programs.

The article focuses on the ethical aspect of personal genome-scanning services which accept the request to process sample from minors. It discusses the policies of several genome-scanning service including Navigenics. It cites the reason why these service companies accept the request and how it violates the right of minor. It suggests that service companies should endorse Article 4 of the suggested code of practice that implies that genetic testing should not be allowed under the age of 16.

Presents a letter to the editor related to ethical issues regarding human genetics.

Emerging technologies like Tandem Mass Spectrometry (TMS) enable multiple tests on a single blood sample and allow the expansion of Newborn Screening (NBS) to include various metabolic diseases. Introducing TMS for NBS raises important social and ethical questions: what are the criteria for adding disorders to screening panels? What evidence justifies expansion of screening? How can equity in NBS access and standards be ensured? How can policy standards be set, given the multiplicity of stakeholders? To address emerging issues, policy-makers, patient advocates, clinicians and researchers had a workshop during the 2005 Garrod Symposium. The participants received a summary of the discussion and understood the workshop's goal was to provide a basis for further discussion. This article contributes to this ongoing discussion. Several proposed recommendations assert the centrality of including social and ethical issues in the assessment of whether or not to introduce TMS. The article outlines five key recommendations for advancing the NBS agenda: national public health leadership; transparency; increased national consistency in NBS strategy, including minimum standards; collaboration between the federal and provincial/territorial governments and diverse stakeholders; and supporting research and/or programs based on effectiveness, which integrate ethical and social issues into assessment.