Search

In March 2005, a group of experts from the European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology met to discuss the interface between genetics and assisted reproductive technology (ART), and published an extended background paper, recommendations and two Editorials. Seven years later, in March 2012, a follow-up interdisciplinary workshop was held, involving representatives of both professional societies, including experts from the European Union Eurogentest2 Coordination Action Project. The main goal of this meeting was to discuss developments at the interface between clinical genetics and ARTs. As more genetic causes of reproductive failure are now recognised and an increasing number of patients undergo testing of their genome before conception, either in regular health care or in the context of direct-to-consumer testing, the need for genetic counselling and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) may increase. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) thus far does not have evidence from randomised clinical trials to substantiate that the technique is both effective and efficient. Whole-genome sequencing may create greater challenges both in the technological and interpretational domains, and requires further reflection about the ethics of genetic testing in ART and PGD/PGS. Diagnostic laboratories should be reporting their results according to internationally accepted accreditation standards (International Standards Organisation - ISO 15189). Further studies are needed in order to address issues related to the impact of ART on epigenetic reprogramming of the early embryo. The legal landscape regarding assisted reproduction is evolving but still remains very heterogeneous and often contradictory. The lack of legal harmonisation and uneven access to infertility treatment and PGD/PGS fosters considerable cross-border reproductive care in Europe and beyond. The aim of this paper is to complement previous publications and provide an update of selected topics that have evolved since 2005. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the guidelines by the Quality Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) on whole-genome sequencing (WGS) in health care. It states that WGS is used for diagnosing severely-ill infants who are in neonatal intensive care. It highlights the role of the Public and Professional Policy Committee (PPPC) and the recommendations by ESHG on minors' genetic testing.

The arrival of new genetic technologies that allow efficient examination of the whole human genome (microarray, next-generation sequencing) will impact upon both laboratories (cytogenetic and molecular genetics in the first instance) and clinical/medical genetic services. The interpretation of analytical results in terms of their clinical relevance and the predicted health status poses a challenge to both laboratory and clinical geneticists, due to the wealth and complexity of the information obtained. There is a need to discuss how to best restructure the genetic services logistically and to determine the clinical utility of genetic testing so that patients can receive appropriate advice and genetic testing. To weigh up the questions and challenges of the new genetic technologies, the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) held a series of workshops on 10 June 2010 in Gothenburg. This was part of an ESHG satellite symposium on the 'Changing landscape of genetic testing', co-organized by the ESHG Genetic Services Quality and Public and Professional Policy Committees. The audience consisted of a mix of geneticists, ethicists, social scientists and lawyers. In this paper, we summarize the discussions during the workshops and present some of the identified ways forward to improve and adapt the genetic services so that patients receive accurate and relevant information. This paper covers ethics, clinical utility, primary care, genetic services and the blurring boundaries between healthcare and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The European Commission is funding projects that aim to establish data-sharing platforms. These platforms are envisioned to enhance and facilitate the international sharing of cohort data. Nevertheless, broad data sharing may be restricted by the lack of adequate recognition for those who share data.Objective: The aim of this study is to describe in depth the concerns about acquiring credit for data sharing within epidemiological research.Methods: A total of 17 participants linked to European Union-funded data-sharing platforms were recruited for a semistructured interview. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive content analysis.Results: Interviewees argued that data sharing within international projects could challenge authorship guidelines in multiple ways. Some respondents considered that the acquisition of credit for articles with extensive author lists could be problematic in some instances, such as for junior researchers. In addition, universities may be critical of researchers who share data more often than leading research. Some considered that the evaluation system undervalues data generators and specialists. Respondents generally looked favorably upon alternatives to the current evaluation system to potentially ameliorate these issues.Conclusions: The evaluation system might impede data sharing because it mainly focuses on first and last authorship and undervalues the contributor's work. Further movement of crediting models toward contributorship could potentially address this issue. Appropriate crediting mechanisms that are better aligned with the way science ought to be conducted in the future need to be developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study is to gather information from European clinical geneticists about their practices and attitudes with regard to carrier testing in incompetent children. European clinical institutes where genetic counseling is offered to patients have been contacted. One hundred and seventy-seven of the 287 eligible respondents, corresponding to a response rate of 63%, completed the questionnaire. For all autosomal recessive and X-linked disorders studied, the majority of the respondents were very unwilling or unwilling to provide a carrier test to a 6-year-old asymptomatic child on parental request (range 73–91%). The results of the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney U test indicated that for almost all disorders, respondents from Eastern and Southern European countries are more willing to provide a carrier test to a 6-year-old asymptomatic child than respondents from Western and Northern European countries. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficients showed that when a clinical geneticist was unwilling to perform such a test, he/she mostly disagreed that parental uncertainty and anxiety was a good reason to perform a carrier test, he/she mostly disagreed that parents should have the right to decide about such a test, he/she mostly agreed that future autonomy and the confidentiality of genetic information is violated if this test is performed. Overall, the survey showed an adherence to existing recommendations and guidelines regarding carrier testing in incompetent minors. However, for every condition studied, a group of clinical geneticists was willing or very willing to provide a carrier test to a 6-year-old child on parental request.European Journal of Human Genetics (2007) 15, 1211–1217; doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201909; published online 22 August 2007 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine of the Council of Europe provides in article 6 for special protection of persons who are not able to give free and informed consent to an intervention in the health field, e.g. minors. According to the second paragraph of this article it is up to domestic law to decide whether and under which conditions a minor is capable of taking autonomous decisions in the health field. In the present article an overview is given of the legal regulations in place regarding the position of minors in a health care setting in the EU Member States that have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine namely Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. As the overview will show, the legal position of minor patients in a health care setting varies from country to country. This in view of the system they have opted for as well as the age and circumstances under which minors are allowed to take health care decisions autonomously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Ethics watch: Direct-access genetic testing: the view from Europe," by L. Kricka and colleagues in the 2011 issue.

The recent introduction of polygenic risk scores within preimplantation genetic testing (PGT-P) has been met with many concerns. To get more insights into the perspectives of relevant stakeholders on the socio-ethical aspects of PGT-P, an interview study with 31 healthcare professionals involved in reproductive medicine and genetics in Europe and North-America was performed. Healthcare professionals in our study were concerned that PGT-P was going too far in terms of selection, with regards to both medical conditions and non-medical traits. Healthcare professionals were worried about the ethical 'slippery slope' of PGT-P, the increasing medicalization of reproductive health, the commercial context of PGT-P, and potential stigmatization and discrimination. There were also concerns that the availability and the 'technological imperative' of PGT-P could lead to pressure and a sense of responsibility for parents to use PGT-P. Additionally, it could cause new anxieties about the child's health before the child has even been born. Since PGT-P provides polygenic risk scores before birth, the autonomy of the child has to be considered. These socio-ethical concerns heighten existing debates regarding reproductive genetic technologies and show that the specifics of PGT-P make this screening option especially ethically controversial. • Introduction of polygenic risk scores in preimplantation genetic testing. • Healthcare professionals concerned about socio-ethical implications. • Associated with 'slippery slope', going too far, discrimination and stigmatization. • Increased sense of medicalization and commercialization of reproduction and health. • Worries about effects on prospective parents and on the future child's autonomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Platforms are being constructed to stimulate cohort data sharing. Nevertheless, many policy barriers impede data sharing. Various interventions have been proposed to address these barriers, including incentive creation and data sharing mandates for researchers., Aim: To understand funding agencies' perspectives on policy interventions to encourage data sharing., Methods: Members of funding agencies were recruited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Nearly all funding agencies are situated in European countries. Interview transcripts were analyzed through inductive content analysis., Results: Mandates for cohort data sharing are not supported by agencies due to data protection regulations and the preconditions for issuing mandates. Recommendation of platforms may be based on certification schemes, such as repository accreditation. Monitoring mechanisms for cohort data sharing are currently absent, which complicates assessing compliance of researchers with funding agencies' policies and evidence production. Funding agencies are not imposing conditions on data access committees., Conclusions: Policy measures that, in some ways, restrict the decision-making authority of researchers in terms of data sharing are not generally supported. Concrete steps are proposed to enable evidence-based policy making. Incentive design is paramount if funding agencies do not wish to impose restrictions on the decision-making authority of researchers., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

There is a strong and ever-growing body of evidence regarding the use of pharmacogenomics to inform cardiovascular pharmacology. However, there is no common position taken by international cardiovascular societies to unite diverse availability, interpretation, and application of such data, nor is there recognition of the challenges of variation in clinical practice between countries within Europe. Aside from the considerable barriers to implementing pharmacogenomic testing and the complexities of clinically actioning results, there are differences in the availability of resources and expertise internationally within Europe. Diverse legal and ethical approaches to genomic testing and clinical therapeutic application also require serious thought. As direct-to-consumer genomic testing becomes more common, it can be anticipated that data may be brought in by patients themselves, which will require critical assessment by the clinical cardiovascular prescriber. In a modern, pluralistic and multi-ethnic Europe, self-identified race/ethnicity may not be concordant with genetically detected ancestry and thus may not accurately convey polymorphism prevalence. Given the broad relevance of pharmacogenomics to areas, such as thrombosis and coagulation, interventional cardiology, heart failure, arrhythmias, clinical trials, and policy/regulatory activity within cardiovascular medicine, as well as to genomic and pharmacology subspecialists, this position statement attempts to address these issues at a wide-ranging level., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Pharmacogenomics promises to advance cardiovascular therapy, but there remain pragmatic barriers to implementation. These are particularly important to explore within Europe, as there are differences in the populations, availability of resources, and expertise, as well as in ethico-legal frameworks. Differences in healthcare delivery across Europe present a challenge, but also opportunities to collaborate on pharmacogenomics implementation. Clinical workforce upskilling is already in progress but will require substantial input. Digital infrastructure and clinical support tools are likely to prove crucial. It is important that widespread implementation serves to narrow rather than widen any existing gaps in health equality between populations. This viewpoint supplements the working group position paper on cardiovascular pharmacogenomics to address these important themes., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: The landscape of clinical research has evolved over the past decade. With technological advances, the practice of using electronic informed consent (eIC) has emerged. However, a number of challenges hinder the successful and widespread deployment of eIC in clinical research. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the views of various stakeholders on the potential advantages and challenges of eIC., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 39 participants from 5 stakeholder groups from across 11 European countries. The stakeholder groups included physicians, patient organization representatives, regulator representatives, ethics committee members, and pharmaceutical industry representatives, and all were involved in clinical research. Interviews were analyzed using the framework method., Results: Interviewees identified that a powerful feature of eIC is its personalized approach as it may increase participant empowerment. However, they identified several ethical and practical challenges, such as ensuring research participants are not overloaded with information and offering the same options to research participants who would prefer a paper-based informed consent rather than eIC. According to the interviewees, eIC has the potential to establish efficient long-term interactions between the research participants and the research team in order to keep the participants informed during and after the study. Interviewees emphasized that a personal interaction with the research team is of utmost importance and this cannot be replaced by an electronic platform. In addition, interviewees across the stakeholder groups supported the idea of having a harmonized eIC approach across the European Member States., Conclusions: Interviewees reported a range of design and implementation challenges which needs to be overcome to foster innovation in informing research participants and obtaining their consent electronically. It was considered important that the implementation of eIC runs alongside the face-to-face contact between research participants and the research team. Moreover, interviewees expect that eIC could offer the opportunity to enable a personalized approach and to strengthen continuous communication over time. If successfully implemented, eIC may facilitate the engagement of research participants in clinical research., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Despite the increased diagnostic yield associated with genomic sequencing (GS), a sizable proportion of patients do not receive a genetic diagnosis at the time of the initial GS analysis. Systematic data reanalysis leads to considerable increases in genetic diagnosis rates yet is time intensive and leads to questions of feasibility. Few policies address whether laboratories have a duty to reanalyse and it is unclear how this impacts clinical practice. To address this, we interviewed 31 genetic health professionals (GHPs) across Europe, Australia and Canada about their experiences with data reanalysis and variant reinterpretation practices after requesting GS for their patients. GHPs described a range of processes required to initiate reanalysis of GS data for their patients and often practices involved a combination of reanalysis initiation methods. The most common mechanism for reanalysis was a patient-initiated model, where they instruct patients to return to the genetic service for clinical reassessment after a period of time or if new information comes to light. Yet several GHPs expressed concerns about patients' inabilities to understand the need to return to trigger reanalysis, or advocate for themselves, which may exacerbate health inequities. Regardless of the reanalysis initiation model that a genetic service adopts, patients' and clinicians' roles and responsibilities need to be clearly outlined so patients do not miss the opportunity to receive ongoing information about their genetic diagnosis. This requires consensus on the delineation of these roles for clinicians and laboratories to ensure clear pathways for reanalysis and reinterpretation to be performed to improve patient care.

Like any new technology, rapid integration of genomic sequencing (GS) into the clinical setting can pose challenges for genetic health professionals (GHPs) using it to diagnose patients. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors across Europe, Australia and Canada to gain a better understanding of the issues they were experiencing when requesting GS and receiving reports from laboratories. There was a spectrum of interactions between genetic health professionals and laboratories. This ranged from those that almost exclusively request sequencing from the laboratory that is affiliated with their genetic service, to those who do not have access to exome sequencing 'in-house' and instead send patient samples to a selection of different external laboratories. In general, a closer interaction between the clinicians and the laboratory scientists increased the involvement of the clinicians in the analysis/interpretation process. This appeared to lead to fewer, but more clinically relevant variants being reported, and greater GHP satisfaction in what is reported. Our findings suggest that GHPs consider integration of clinical expertise into the analysis/interpretation process is critical to ensure that the variants reported are of high clinical significance to patients. They also highlight the importance of providing GHPs with training in report interpretation., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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.

Objective: To explore attitudes of clinical and molecular geneticists about the implementation of multi-disease or expanded carrier screening (ECS) for monogenic recessive disorders., Design: Qualitative; semistructured interviews., Setting: In person or via Skype. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim., Participants: European clinical and molecular geneticists with expertise in carrier screening (N = 16)., Methods: Inductive content analysis was used to identify common content categories in the data., Results: Participants recognized important benefits of ECS, but they also identified major challenges, including limited benefit of ECS for most couples in the general population, lack of knowledge on carrier screening among nongenetic health care providers and the general public, potential negative implications of ECS for society, and limited economic resources. Participants favored an evidence-based approach to the implementation of population-wide ECS and were reluctant to actively offer ECS in the absence of demonstrable benefits. However, there was a consensus among the participants that ECS should be made available to couples who request the test. In addition, they believed ECS could be routinely offered to all people who use assisted reproduction., Conclusion: Although a limited ECS offer is practical, it also raises concerns over equality in access to screening. A comprehensive risk-benefit analysis is needed to determine the desirability of systematic population-wide ECS., (Copyright © 2017 AWHONN, the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Given the cost constraints of the European health-care systems, criteria are needed to decide which genetic services to fund from the public budgets, if not all can be covered. To ensure that high-priority services are available equitably within and across the European countries, a shared set of prioritization criteria would be desirable. A decision process following the accountability for reasonableness framework was undertaken, including a multidisciplinary EuroGentest/PPPC-ESHG workshop to develop shared prioritization criteria. Resources are currently too limited to fund all the beneficial genetic testing services available in the next decade. Ethically and economically reflected prioritization criteria are needed. Prioritization should be based on considerations of medical benefit, health need and costs. Medical benefit includes evidence of benefit in terms of clinical benefit, benefit of information for important life decisions, benefit for other people apart from the person tested and the patient-specific likelihood of being affected by the condition tested for. It may be subject to a finite time window. Health need includes the severity of the condition tested for and its progression at the time of testing. Further discussion and better evidence is needed before clearly defined recommendations can be made or a prioritization algorithm proposed. To our knowledge, this is the first time a clinical society has initiated a decision process about health-care prioritization on a European level, following the principles of accountability for reasonableness. We provide points to consider to stimulate this debate across the EU and to serve as a reference for improving patient management.

Study Question: How has the interface between genetics and assisted reproduction technology (ART) evolved since 2005?, Summary Answer: The interface between ART and genetics has become more entwined as we increase our understanding about the genetics of infertility and we are able to perform more comprehensive genetic testing., What Is Known Already: In March 2005, a group of experts from the European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology met to discuss the interface between genetics and ART and published an extended background paper, recommendations and two Editorials., Study Design, Size, Duration: An interdisciplinary workshop was held, involving representatives of both professional societies and experts from the European Union Eurogentest2 Coordination Action Project., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: In March 2012, a group of experts from the European Society of Human Genetics, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and the EuroGentest2 Coordination Action Project met to discuss developments at the interface between clinical genetics and ART., Main Results and the Role of Chance: As more genetic causes of reproductive failure are now recognized and an increasing number of patients undergo testing of their genome prior to conception, either in regular health care or in the context of direct-to-consumer testing, the need for genetic counselling and PGD may increase. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) thus far does not have evidence from RCTs to substantiate that the technique is both effective and efficient. Whole genome sequencing may create greater challenges both in the technological and interpretational domains, and requires further reflection about the ethics of genetic testing in ART and PGD/PGS. Diagnostic laboratories should be reporting their results according to internationally accepted accreditation standards (ISO 15189). Further studies are needed in order to address issues related to the impact of ART on epigenetic reprogramming of the early embryo., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The legal landscape regarding assisted reproduction is evolving, but still remains very heterogeneous and often contradictory. The lack of legal harmonization and uneven access to infertility treatment and PGD/PGS fosters considerable cross-border reproductive care in Europe, and beyond., Wider Implications of the Findings: This continually evolving field requires communication between the clinical genetics and IVF teams and patients to ensure that they are fully informed and can make well-considered choices., Study Funding/competing Interests: Funding was received from ESHRE, ESHG and EuroGentest2 European Union Coordination Action project (FP7 - HEALTH-F4-2010-26146) to support attendance at this meeting., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

In March 2005, a group of experts from the European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology met to discuss the interface between genetics and assisted reproductive technology (ART), and published an extended background paper, recommendations and two Editorials. Seven years later, in March 2012, a follow-up interdisciplinary workshop was held, involving representatives of both professional societies, including experts from the European Union Eurogentest2 Coordination Action Project. The main goal of this meeting was to discuss developments at the interface between clinical genetics and ARTs. As more genetic causes of reproductive failure are now recognised and an increasing number of patients undergo testing of their genome before conception, either in regular health care or in the context of direct-to-consumer testing, the need for genetic counselling and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) may increase. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) thus far does not have evidence from randomised clinical trials to substantiate that the technique is both effective and efficient. Whole-genome sequencing may create greater challenges both in the technological and interpretational domains, and requires further reflection about the ethics of genetic testing in ART and PGD/PGS. Diagnostic laboratories should be reporting their results according to internationally accepted accreditation standards (International Standards Organisation - ISO 15189). Further studies are needed in order to address issues related to the impact of ART on epigenetic reprogramming of the early embryo. The legal landscape regarding assisted reproduction is evolving but still remains very heterogeneous and often contradictory. The lack of legal harmonisation and uneven access to infertility treatment and PGD/PGS fosters considerable cross-border reproductive care in Europe and beyond. The aim of this paper is to complement previous publications and provide an update of selected topics that have evolved since 2005.

The participation of minors in biobank research can offer great benefits for science and health care. However, as minors are a vulnerable population they are also in need of adequate protective measures when they are enrolled in research. Research using biobanked biological samples from children poses additional ethical issues to those raised by research using adult biobanks. For example, small children have only limited capacity, if any, to understand the meaning and implications of the research and to give a documented agreement to it. Older minors are gradually acquiring this capacity. We describe principles for good practice related to the inclusion of minors in biobank research, focusing on issues related to benefits and subsidiarity, consent, proportionality and return of results. Some of these issues are currently heavily debated, and we conclude by providing principles for good practice for policy makers of biobanks, researchers and anyone involved in dealing with stored tissue samples from children. Actual implementation of the principles will vary according to different jurisdictions.

An increasing number of private companies are now offering direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing services. Although a lot of attention has been devoted to the regulatory framework of DTC genetic testing services in the USA, only limited information about the regulatory framework in Europe is available. We will report on the situation with regard to the national legislation on DTC genetic testing in seven European countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, France, Germany, the United Kingdom). The paper will address whether these countries have legislation that specifically address the issue of DTC genetic testing or have relevant laws that is pertinent to the regulatory control of these services in their countries. The findings show that France, Germany, Portugal and Switzerland have specific legislation that defines that genetic tests can only be carried out by a medical doctor after the provision of sufficient information concerning the nature, meaning and consequences of the genetic test and after the consent of the person concerned. In the Netherlands, some DTC genetic tests could fall under legislation that provides the Minister the right to refuse to provide a license to operate if a test is scientifically unsound, not in accordance with the professional medical practice standards or if the expected benefit is not in balance with the (potential) health risks. Belgium and the United Kingdom allow the provision of DTC genetic tests.

This article discusses the relation between empirical and normative approaches in bioethics. The issue of dwarf tossing, while admittedly unusual, is chosen as a point of departure because it challenges the reader to look with fresh eyes upon several central bioethical themes, including human dignity, autonomy, and the protection of vulnerable people. After an overview of current approaches to the integration of empirical and normative ethics, we consider five ways that the empirical and normative can be brought together to speak to the problem of dwarf tossing: prescriptive applied ethics, theoretical ethics, critical applied ethics, particularist ethics and integrated empirical ethics. We defend a position of critical applied ethics that allows for a two-way relation between empirical and normative theories. Against efforts fully to integrate the normative and the empirical into one synthesis, we propose that the two should stand in tension and relation to one another. The approach we endorse acknowledges that a social practice can and should be judged both by the gathering of empirical data and by normative ethics. Critical applied ethics uses a five stage process that includes: (a) determination of the problem, (b) description of the problem, (c) empirical study of effects and alternatives, (d) normative weighing and (e) evaluation of the effects of a decision. In each stage, we explore the perspective from both the empirical (sociological) and the normative ethical point of view. We conclude by applying our five-stage critical applied ethics to the example of dwarf tossing.

Presumed consent alone will not solve the organ shortage, but it will create an ethical and legal context that supports organ donation, respects individuals who object to organ donation, relieves families from the burden of decision making, and can save lives.

The aim of this study is to gather information from European clinical geneticists about their practices and attitudes with regard to presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing in minors. European clinical institutes where genetic counseling is offered to patients were contacted. One hundred seventy-seven of the 287 eligible respondents (63%) answered a questionnaire. There was strongest support for testing young children when it provides a clear medical benefit, such as in the case of FAP and MEN2A. However, there is disagreement about when to provide predictive genetic testing for childhood-onset disorders for which therapeutic or preventive measures exist with some supporting the rule of earliest onset and others giving parents wider discretion. However, for childhood-onset disorders that do not have therapeutic measures, the majority of the respondents is unwilling to provide a presymptomatic or predictive genetic test. With respect to adolescents, many held a cautious position regarding presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing. Most clinical geneticists were unwilling to provide a presymptomatic or predictive genetic test for adult-onset diseases, except if it might provide a medical benefit. Although adolescents might be legally in the position to request a presymptomatic or predictive genetic test personally, the clinical geneticists are significantly more willing to provide a test if this request is made together with the minor's parents. This variability demonstrates the need for clinical geneticists to discuss their contradicting views and to develop harmonized practices throughout Europe., ((c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)