This essay examines the possible systematic bias against the disabled in the structure and practice of genetic counseling. Finding that the profession's “nondirective” imperative remains problematic, the authors recommend that methodology developed by feminist standpoint epistemology be used to incorporate the perspective of disabled individuals in genetic counselors' education and practice, thereby reforming society's view of the disabled and preventing possible negative effects of genetic counseling on the self-concept and material circumstance of disabled individuals.

Genetic counseling is viewed as a therapeutic interrelationship between genetic counselors and their clients. In a previous relational ethics research project, various themes were identified as key components of relational ethics practice grounded in everyday health situations. In this article the relational ethics approach is further explored in the context of genetic counseling to enhance our understanding of how the counselor-client relationship is contextually developed and maintained. Qualitative interviews were conducted with six adult clients undergoing genetic counseling for predictive testing. (...) Engagement, dialogue and presence were revealed as relevant to genetic counselor-client relationships. A relational ethics approach in genetic counseling challenges the concept of nondirectiveness and may enhance the outcome of counseling for both counselor and client. (shrink)

While ethical and empirical interest in so-called secondary variants and incidental findings in clinical genetics contexts is growing, critical reflection on the ethical foundations of the various recommendations proposed is thus far largely lacking. We examine and critique the ethical justifications of the three most prominent disclosure positions: briefly, the clinical geneticist decides, a joint decision, and the patient decides. Subsequently, instead of immediately developing a new disclosure option, we explore relevant foundational ethical values and norms, drawing on the normative (...) and empirical ethical literature. Four ethical signposts are thereby developed to help guide disclosure discussions. These are: respectful sharing of the clinician’s expertise; transparent communication; epistemic modesty; and respect for the embedded nature of the patient. We conclude by considering the most common current disclosure positions in the light of the four ethical signposts. (shrink)