Search

Abstract  Childhood genetic testing raises complex ethical and moral dilemmas for both families and professionals. In the family sphere, the role of communication is a key aspect in the transmission of ‘genetic responsibility’ between adults and children. In the professional sphere, genetic responsibility is an interactional accomplishment emerging from the sometimes competing views over what constitutes the ‘best interests’ of the child in relation to parental preferences on the one hand, and professional judgements on the other. In the present paper we extend our previous research into parental accounts of childhood genetic testing and explore the ethical accounts of professionals in research interviews. Interviews (n = 20) were conducted with professional practitioners involved in the genetic diagnosis and management of children and their families. We first identify four inter-related themes—juxtaposition of parental rights vis-à-vis child’s autonomy, elicitation of the child’s autonomy, avoidance of parental responsibility and recognition of professional uncertainty. Then, using Rhetorical Discourse Analysis, we examine the range of discourse devices through which ethical accounts are situationally illustrated: contrast, reported speech, constructed dialogue, character and event work. An overarching device in these ethical accounts is the use of extreme case scenarios, which reconstruct dilemmas as justifications of professional conduct. While acknowledging ambivalence, our analysis suggests that professional judgement is not a simple matter of implementing ethical principles but rather of managing the practical conditions and consequences of interactions with parents and children. We conclude that more attention is needed to understand the way professional practitioners formulate judgements about ethical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract  As an individual’s understanding of their genetic risk may influence risk management decisions, it is important to understand the ways in which risk is constructed and interpreted. We systematically reviewed the literature, undertaking a narrative synthesis of 59 studies presenting data on the ways in which individuals perceive, construct and interpret their risk, and the subsequent effects. While most studies assessed perceived risk quantitatively, the combined evidence suggests individuals find risk difficult to accurately quantify, with a tendency to overestimate. Rather than being a stand-alone concept, risk is something lived and experienced and the process of constructing risk is complex and influenced by many factors. While evidence of the effects of perceived risk is limited and inconsistent, there is some evidence to suggest high risk estimations may adversely affect health and lead to inappropriate uptake of medical surveillance and preventative measures by some individuals. A more focused approach to research is needed with greater exploration of the ways in which risk is constructed, along with the development of stronger theoretical models, to facilitate effective and patient-centered counseling strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract  Rozario’s presentation of the cultural manifestations of stigma experienced by a British Bangladeshi woman with Neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1) is unusual in its detail of one woman’s account of others’ interactions with her and the impact on her life. It raises issues that are readily recognisable to genetic counselors and are familiar themes in the literature on the psychology of appearance. We draw on the genetics literature and on a body of expertise in research on the psychology of visible difference to consider the role of the genetic counselor in response to expressions of stigmatization or poor self-esteem by those with a visible difference caused by a genetic condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors (AGNC) is the professional organisation which represents genetic counsellors and genetic nurses in the United Kingdom (UK) and Eire. The AGNC recognises that genetic counselling supervision is instrumental to the practice, training and registration of genetic counsellors in the UK. The AGNC formed a Supervision Working Group, whose terms of reference were to collate information on supervision and create a list of ?best practice? recommendations for its genetic counsellor members. This report delivers the findings from the Supervision Working Group and has been peer reviewed by the AGNC membership in the UK and Eire and ratified by the AGNC Committee. It offers a working definition of genetic counselling supervision, gives an overview of some of the literature on supervision and concludes with practice recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract As a sequel to an earlier paper (Sarangi et al., 2004. J Genet Couns, 13(2), 135–155) examining genetic counselors’ initiation of reflective frames, in this paper we analyze the variable ways in which clients respond to such reflective frames in the clinical setting. Of the six types of reflective questions identified, we focus on two types, which recur throughout the counseling protocol: (i) questions about clients’ decisions to have genetic testing and (ii) questions exploring the potential impact of a positive or negative test result. The analytic focus here is on the mismatches surrounding clients’ apparent readiness to discuss coping with the onset of disease (risk of disease) when they have been asked to discuss coping with genetic test results (risk of knowing). Our theoretical discussion is centered around the notion of alignment as a framework for locating the convergence and divergence of counselors’ and clients’ agendas in interaction. Drawing on detailed transcripts of 24 Huntington’s Disease counseling consultations in South Wales, we analyze 119 counselor–client question–response sequences using the methodology of discourse analysis. Preliminary coding of clients’ responses led us to identify three recurrent themes: (a) gaining knowledge as a basis for future action; (b) needing to know as a subjective necessity; and (c) downplaying what can be known. In a further analysis of extended data extracts, we draw attention to how clients display varying degrees of engagement with regard to the testing process and outcomes along the temporal and social axes. At one extreme, clients may take up the opportunity to engage in self-reflection, and thus endorse the legitimacy of the reflective frame. At the other extreme, clients may implicitly or explicitly challenge the relevance of self-reflection, and hence the usefulness of this counselor-initiated routine. We suggest that clients’ varied response behaviors result from the perceived need of some clients to display their ‘readiness’ for predictive testing—an overarching ‘meta-question’ posed by the very existence of the counseling protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetic professionals and clients are likely to assign different meanings to the extended format of the counseling protocols for predictive testing. In order to facilitate informed, client-centerd decisions about the possibility of predictive testing, counselors routinely use the question format to initiate what we call “reflective frames” that invite clients to discuss their feelings and encourage them to adopt introspective and self-reflective stances toward their own experience—spanning the past, the present, and the hypothetical future. We suggest that such initiations of reflective frames constitute a key element of counselors' nondirective stance, although the exact nature of their formulations can be complex and varied. Examining 24 Huntington's Disease (HD) clinic sessions involving 12 families in South Wales with the tools of discourse analysis, our focus in this paper is twofold: (i) to propose a classification of six types of reflective questions (e.g. nonspecific invites, awareness and anxiety, decision about testing, impact of result, dissemination, and other) and to examine their distribution across the various clinic appointments, and (ii) to investigate the scope of these questions in terms of temporal and social axes. We link our analysis to the current debate within the genetic counseling profession about the merits of reflection- versus information-focused counseling styles and the need to abide by professionally warranted and institutionally embedded counseling protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]