Health policy is increasingly confronted with the demand for financing genetic testing on inherited susceptibility to disease. Tests on polymorphism/snp associated with multicausal and chronic conditions are already offered in private commercial institutions or in academic hospitals. The increasing pressure on public health services to offer SNP testing leads to first methodological approaches for a generally valid regulatory framework applicable for inclusion or refusal of genetic tests into the public health services. Systematic search in Medline, Embase (...) and the Web for methodological papers or guidelines for the assessment of polymorphism-screening. Since genetic testing has not only clinical and economic effects on health care, but also primarily ethical consequences by profiling our understanding of “health” and “disease”, this paper gives an overview of relevant aspects and background information to consider in the assessment of genetic tests. Although 2–3 million SNPs are identified and the journals are full of reported “significant” associations between disease and mutation, only a few can be replicated unequivocally. The ACCE -framework was developed by the Center of Disease Control for the assessment of genetic testing. This standardised appraisal approach proposes collecting and evaluating: Prevalence, genotype-/phenotype-relation. Clinical presentation: natural history; the different expressions of disease. Performance of the genetic test. Implications for therapy and prevention. Conclusion for clinical applications of risk-profiling of health on their susceptibility to disease and/or for clarification of disease for therapy planning. Since genetic testing is urging its way into the health care system, the actual danger is, that population screening starts before valid evidence from big prospective studies have been carried out and delivered proofs of direct causal associations. Before diffusing into the health care system we are suggesting to take a cautious and standardised approach. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Genetic Testing and Genetic ScreeningPat Milmoe McCarrick (bio)In recent years there has been an enormous expansion in the knowledge that may be gleaned from the testing of an individual's genetic material to predict present or future disability or disease either for oneself or one's offspring. The Human Genome Project, which is currently mapping the entire human gene system, is identifying progressively more genetic (...) sequencing information (see Scope Note 17, The Human Genome Project). Information obtained from genetic testing raises ethical and legal questions about its uses by society. The ethical dilemmas were foreseen two decades ago by bioethicists who asked whether questionable applications could stop "legitimate pursuits" (IV, Gaylin 1972) and whether genetic disease might come to be viewed as "transmissible" in the sense of being contagious (IV, Veatch 1974).Not only has knowledge expanded, but the practice of genetic testing and screening has greatly increased as well. For example, in the case of testing for cystic fibrosis (CF), the U.S. Congress' Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) estimates that instances of screening jumped from 9310 tests in 1991 to 63,000 tests in 1992 (I, OTA [Cystic Fibrosis] 1992). In addition, the OTA estimates that within the next few years, the six million women who become pregnant each year routinely will be informed of available CF carrier tests (I, OTA [Cystic Fibrosis] 1992).Following the recent identification of a gene linked to breast cancer, Dr. Francis Sellers Collins, director of the National Center for Human Genome Research, said that "it is not inconceivable that every woman in America may want to be screened for this gene. The economic, ethical, and counseling issues will be very daunting." Dr. Collins opines that in the near future physical examinations for 18-year-olds will include DNA testing for diseases with genetic components and that physicians, in the interests of preventive medicine, will make risk-based recommendations for a healthy life-style (IV, Breo 1993). The U.S. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research predicted as early as 1983 that before the end of the century genetic screening and counseling would become major components of both public health and individual medical care (I, U.S. President's Commission 1983). [End Page 333]The OTA defines genetic testing as "the use of specific assays to determine the genetic status of individuals already suspected to be at high risk for a particular inherited condition. The terms genetic test, genetic assay, and genetic analysis are used interchangeably to mean the actual laboratory examination of samples." In contrast, genetic screening usually uses the same assays employed for genetic testing but is distinguished from genetic testing by its target population (I, OTA [Genetic Monitoring] 1990). The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defines screening as the systematic search of populations for persons with latent, early, or asymptomatic disease (III, NAS 1975). Some of the literature annotated for this Scope Note appears to use the terms "testing" and "screening" interchangeably.Philip Boyle of the Hastings Center points out that the language used to describe genetic variation is important and asks what words should be used: "Defects, flaws, deleterious genes, disorders, or the more neutral conditions? Using words such as normal—and its corollary, abnormal—is likely to foster stigmatization and discrimination" (III, Genetic Grammar, Boyle 1992).Areas of focus in genetic testing include: prenatal diagnosis, newborn screening, carrier screening, forensic screening, and susceptibility screening.Prenatal diagnosis discerns whether a fetus is at risk for various identifiable genetic diseases or traits. Prenatal diagnosis is made using amniotic fluid, fetal cells, and fetal or maternal blood cells obtained during amniocentesis testing; alpha fetoprotein assays or chorionic villus sampling; or ultrasound tomography, which creates fetal images on a screen. Another method, known as fetoscopy, uses a camera on a needle inserted in the uterus to view the fetus. Since prenatal screening began in 1966 (I, U.S. President's Commission 1983), the number of metabolic defects and genetic disorders that can be diagnosed prenatally has expanded greatly. There is also discussion of requiring testing for parents who are participating in an in vitro fertilization program and are at genetic... (shrink)

Epidemiologists and geneticists claim that genetics has an increasing role to play in public health policies and programs in the future. Within this perspective, genetic testing and screening are instrumental in avoiding the birth of children with serious, costly or untreatable disorders. This paper discusses genetic testing and screening within the framework of eugenics in the health care context of India. Observations are based on literature review and empirical research using qualitative methods. I distinguish (...) ‘private’ from ‘public’ eugenics. I refer to the practice of prenatal diagnosis as an aspect of private eugenics, when the initiative to test comes from the pregnant woman herself. Public eugenics involves testing initiated by the state or medical profession through (more or less) obligatory testing programmes. To illustrate these concepts I discuss the management of thalassaemia, which I see as an example of private eugenics that is moving into the sphere of public eugenics. I then discuss the recently launched newborn screening programme as an example of public eugenics. I use Foucault’s concepts of power and governmentality to explore the thin line separating individual choice and overt or covert coercion, and between private and public eugenics. We can expect that the use of genetic testing technology will have serious and far-reaching implications for cultural perceptions regarding health and disease and women’s experience of pregnancy, besides creating new ethical dilemmas and new professional and parental responsibilities. Therefore, culturally sensitive health literacy programmes to empower the public and sensitise professionals need attention. (shrink)

Noninvasive prenatal testing promises to enhance women's reproductive autonomy by providing genetic information about the fetus, especially in the detection of genetic impairments like Down syndrome. In practice, however, NIPT provides opportunities for intensified manipulation and control over women's reproductive decisions. Applying Miranda Fricker's concept of epistemic injustice to prenatal screening, this article analyzes how medical professionals impair reproductive decision-making by perpetuating testimonial injustice. They do so by discrediting positive parental testimony about what it is like (...) to raise a child with DS. We argue that this testimonial injustice constitutes a twofold harm: people with DS and their family members who claim that parenting a child with DS may be a rewarding and joyous experience are harmed when they are systematically silenced, disbelieved, and/or denied epistemic credibility by medical professionals, and pregnant women are harmed since they might make poorly informed choices without access to all relevant information. The broader implication of the analysis is that epistemic justice is a precondition of reproductive autonomy. We conclude by calling for federal oversight of the acquisition and dissemination of information that prospective parents receive following a positive diagnosis of DS to ensure that it is comprehensive and up to date. (shrink)

The Human Genome Project has allowed researchers to gain new insights into the genetic causes of health and disease. With this knowledge comes the potential to develop new genetic tests that are capable of predicting the risk of disease or disability among presently healthy individuals. This information is potentially beneficial in that it may allow individuals to develop strategies to reduce their risk of illness and may allow health providers to recognize and treat the early stages of disease (...) more effectively. As knowledge about genetic contributions to disease continues to grow and genetic testing technology becomes more widespread, there is a risk that personal genetic information could be used in ways potentially concerning to consumers. Genetic testing technology could potentially be used to discriminate against individuals in terms of their ability to obtain health, life, and disability insurance. Decreased access to insurance, in turn, significantly hinders access to health care and income for oneself and/or for one's dependent. (shrink)

Scientists, the medical profession, philosophers, social scientists, policy makers, and the public at large have been quick to embrace the accomplishments of genetic science. The enthusiasm for the new biotechnologies is not unrelated to their worthy goal. The belief that the new genetic technologies will help to decrease human suffering by improving the public’s health has been a significant influence in the acceptance of technologies such as genetic testing and screening. But accepting this end should (...) not blind us to the need for an evaluation of whether a particular means is adequate to achieve it. Lack of such evaluation notwithstanding, discussions of the ethical, legal, and social implications have tended to presuppose that the development and implementation of genetic testing will be an appropriate means to reduce human suffering in significant ways. I argue here that such an assumption is mistaken. In part this is the case because human biology is more complex than sometimes it is made to appear in these debates. But, the idea that human suffering resulting from disease can be reduced in significant ways with the use of genetic testing also ignores the social contexts in which these technologies are being developed and implemented. (shrink)

Scientists, the medical profession, philosophers, social scientists, policy makers, and the public at large have been quick to embrace the accomplishments of genetic science. The enthusiasm for the new biotechnologies is not unrelated to their worthy goal. The belief that the new genetic technologies will help to decrease human suffering by improving the public’s health has been a significant influence in the acceptance of technologies such as genetic testing and screening. But accepting this end should (...) not blind us to the need for an evaluation of whether a particular means is adequate to achieve it. Lack of such evaluation notwithstanding, discussions of the ethical, legal, and social implications have tended to presuppose that the development and implementation of genetic testing will be an appropriate means to reduce human suffering in significant ways. I argue here that such an assumption is mistaken. In part this is the case because human biology is more complex than sometimes it is made to appear in these debates. But, the idea that human suffering resulting from disease can be reduced in significant ways with the use of genetic testing also ignores the social contexts in which these technologies are being developed and implemented. (shrink)

Individual autonomy is a concept highly appreciated in modern Western societies. Its significance is reflected by the central importance and broad use of the model of informed consent in all fields of medicine. In predictive genetic testing, individual autonomy gains particular importance, for what is in focus here is not so much a concrete medical treatment but rather options for taking preventive measures and the influence that the test results have on long-term lifestyle and preferences. Based on an (...) analysis of autonomy-related issues in predictive genetic diagnosis and genetic screening programmes, this contribution stresses the central relevance of a broad notion of autonomy for the discussion of ethical issues raised in connection with predictive genetic testing and genetic screening programmes. Only against the background of such a broad notion of autonomy, which stresses not only free and informed decision-making but also the relevance of long-term prospects for leading a self-determined life in familial and social contexts, can the manifold autonomy-related issues linked to predictive genetic testing be given adequate consideration. (shrink)

The prelims comprise: Introduction: Informed Consent and the Doctor‐Patient Relationship The Role of Children in the Informed Consent Process Newborn Screening: Mandatory Screening versus Informed Consent Testing Young Children for Early‐onset Genetic Conditions Testing Children for Late‐onset Genetic Conditions Testing Children for Carrier Status Conclusion Acknowledgments.

Today it is possible to screen for mutated DNA sequences which do not induce any diseases but predispose to develop diseases under certain environmental condition. These latter disorders are called multifactorial since they result from the interplay of genetic and environmental factors. Among multifactorial disorders there are job-related diseases whose genetic component can be identified by genetic screening tests. The use of these tests to predict occupational disorders, to cut down on them, and to save costs—in (...) particular for absenteeism, health care, and lawsuits—is of interest to employers and insurers. As for employees, it could entail an extremely deep invasion of privacy, economic problems and, very likely, a jeopardy of the present position of the individual who may be screened even if his/her potential disease is never developed. (shrink)

Genetic testing can not only provide information about diseases but also their prevalence in ethnic, gender, or other vulnerable populations. While offering the promise of significant therapeutic benefits and serving to highlight our commonality, genetic information also raises a number of sensitive human rights issues touching on identity and the perception thereof, as well as the possibility of discrimination and social stigma. It stands to reason that the results of individual screenings could haplessly be used to make (...) general assumptions about entire ethnic or gender groups. In this manner, genetic information can directly influence identity by impacting and perhaps even reframing conceptions of group rights and dimensions of self-identification, thus importing constitutional scrutiny on questions of dignity and discrimination in particular. Is there a risk of collective stigmatization deriving from discrete testing of self-identified individuals? Would such stigmatization impinge on individual dignity by the exogenous imposition of ethnic or gender/sexual identity? If so, what norms can most adequately respond if and when individual and group interests diverge? These questions are examined from a comparative perspective. (shrink)

The genetic testing and screening of children has been fraught with controversy since Robert Guthrie developed the bacterial inhibition assay to test for phenylketonuria and advocated for rapid uptake of universal newborn screening in the early 1960s. Today with fast and affordable mass screening of the whole genome on the horizon, the debate about when and in what scenarios children should undergo genetic testing and screening has gained renewed attention. United States professional (...) guidelines — both the American College of Medical Genetics /American Society of Human Genetics statement and the American Academy of Pediatrics Statement on the genetic testing of children and the new AAP and ACMG joint policy statement and technical report — as well as the old UK guidelines by the Working Part of the Clinical Genetics Society and the new United Kingdom guidelines by the British Society of Human Genetics all give the same answer: genetic testing and screening should only be done if it is in the child’s best interest. (shrink)

Background Genetic testing is moving from targeted investigations of monogenetic diseases to broader testing that may provide more information. For example, recent health economic studies of genetic testing for an increased risk of breast cancer suggest that it is associated with higher cost-effectiveness to screen for pathogenic variants in a seven gene panel rather than the usual two gene test for variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2. However, irrespective of the extent to which the screening (...) of the panel is cost-effective, there may be ethical reasons to not screen for pathogenic variants in a panel, or to revise the way in which testing and disclosing of results are carried out. Main text In this paper we discuss the ethical aspects of genetic testing for an increased risk of breast cancer with a special focus on the ethical differences between screening for pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 and a seven gene panel. The paper identifies that the panel increases the number of secondary findings as well as the number of variants of uncertain significance as two specific issues that call for ethical reflection. Conclusions We conclude that while the problem of handling secondary findings should not be overstated with regard to the panel, the fact that the panel also generate more variants of uncertain significance, give rise to a more complex set of problems that relate to the value of health as well as the value of autonomy. Therefore, it is insufficient to claim that the seven gene panel is preferable by only referring to the higher cost effectiveness of the panel. (shrink)

This paper discusses legal and ethical issues related to genetic screening. It is argued that persons identified with actual or perceived deleterious genetic markers are protected by the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, if members of a protected group, regardless of whether or not they are currently ill. However, legislation may not protect all employees in all scenarios, in which case, ethical principles should guide decision-making. In doing so a (...) model of preventive ethics is proposed to better understand the multiple levels on which this issue resides. (shrink)

Although principles, as a framework to resolving moral dilemmas are still debated and seem to be in a philosophical quagmire, there are strong arguments that by specification one can resolve case-specific dilemmas in certain areas of bioethics. When it comes to genetic screening and testing however, the problem at the base is a moral disagreement on higher-order principles—such as the status of the embryo and parental issues. No amount of specification can resolve these issues without a dose (...) of relativism. We explore a possibility of agreement on debatable areas specifically in regard to genetics—such as conferring status to the embryo solely for purposes of preventing genetic selection; but it is difficult to see how this can be incorporated into law without extrapolation to other areas. We conclude therefore that the four-principles approach, albeit valuable for expounding opposing views and discussing issues, cannot either alone or by specification, help resolve issues of genetic screening and testing without agreeing on higher order principle. This does not seem to be a possibility in the near future. (shrink)

At a time when more corporate employers are using genetic information as a cornerstone of their hiring practices, when workers find their chromosomes considered alongside their resumes, the ramifications of genetic testing demand further examination. Risky Business analyzes health screening in the workplace - three major types of testing are examined: genetic screening in which job applicants and employees are tested for inherited traits that may predispose them to the disease:genetic monitoring that (...) aims to detect genetic damage among current employees that could indicate exposure to dangerous chemicals; and teratogenic risk in which laboratory cultures and animals are used to provide evidence of the effects of chemical exposure on humans. (shrink)

The possibility of early diagnosis and intervention is radically changed by the advent of genetic testing. The recent report of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics is timely and helpful. I have suggested, that not only the severity of the disability indicated by genetic information, and the accuracy of the data, ought to govern the approach to the implementation of screening for genetic disorders. In addition, assessment of the value of the information to those involved should (...) be considered. The efficacy of the available therapeutic measures, combined with the prognostic data are important indices of the value of the information. These measures fall into three categories and thus indicate that three different courses of intervention may be appropriate. Three approaches to diagnosis and intervention are then outlined, drawing on the experience of various clinical initiatives. (shrink)

: There is a general consensus in the medical and medical ethics communities against predictive genetic testing of children for late onset conditions, but minimal consideration is given to predictive testing of asymptomatic children for disorders that present later in childhood when presymptomatic treatment cannot influence the course of the disease. In this paper, I examine the question of whether it is ethical to perform predictive testing and screening of newborns and young children for conditions (...) that present later in childhood. I consider the risks and benefits of (1) predictive testing of children from high-risk families; (2) predictive population screening for conditions that are untreatable; and (3) predictive population screening for conditions in which the efficacy of presymptomatic treatment is equivocal. I conclude in favor of parental discretion for predictive genetic testing, but against state-sponsored predictive screening for conditions that do not fulfill public health screening criteria. (shrink)

Pragmatic approaches to genetic testing are discussed and appraised. Whilst there are various schools of pragmatism, the Deweyan appraoch seems to be the most appreciated in bioethics as it allows a historical approach indebted to Hegel. This in turn allows the pragmatist to specify and balance principles in various contexts. There are problems with where to draw a line between what is referred to here as the micro- and macro-level of doing bioethics, unless one is simply to be (...) classified as a principlist. Whilst most discussions on genetics occur at a macro level, most specifying must be done also at a micro level – the clinical encounter. Whilst pragmatism encourages us to understand better social and scientific factors and puts into perspective statements like ‘playing God’, doubts are raised about the ‘consensus’ process and how one can put aside fundamental values such as the moral status of the embryo on which there is general disagreement. If those doing pragmatism do not endorse these values, there seems to be little ground for process and compromise with those who do. It seems therefore that pragmatism cannot ignore values, even those which are not endorsed by everyone. (shrink)

Newborn screening for genetic diseases has developed rapidly in Western countries. These biopolitics raise the question of birth as a sociological “knot” insofar as it is the threshold between the child and the fetus. The question therefore addressed in this text, based on a field study of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis in France, is that of the link between the quest for good health and the elimination of poor health. Do they reinforce each other or, on (...) the contrary, are they contradictory? I analyze the positions of both mothers of screened children and clinicians regarding the following three points: prenatal diagnosis to preclude sets of sick siblings, identification of heterozygous individuals, and generalized prenatal screening. This study shows how increasingly attentive patient care and an increasingly demanding approach to prenatal diagnosis reinforce one another. It also analyzes the role of taking action early on and evaluating the lives of sick or disabled people in this process. In conclusion, I engage a more general discussion about what I suggest calling a “quality life.”. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Information Management: Confidentiality, Autonomy and Non‐Directiveness Predictive Genetic Testing Childhood Genetic Testing Genetic Screening Informed Consent to Screening Newborn Screening Carrier Screening Prenatal Screening Susceptibility Screening Further Information Management Goals of Genetic Screening: Public Health vs Individual Choice Conclusion References Further reading.

One moot point in bioethical debates about genetic testing concerns the conditions that have to be fulfilled to make individual genetic testing or individual participation in genetic screening programs truly voluntary. Though there is a relatively broad consensus about the non-viability of views on the extremes of the spectrum of opinions, there is considerable disagreement in the middle. This mirrors the difficulties in defining satisfactory demarcation lines between autonomous choice, pressured choice and coercion in (...) cases in which the decision to participate is triggered, wholly or partly, by factors such as material incentives, urgent health needs, massive social expectations, or moral pressure from relatives. In this contribution, some of the semantic conditions and ethical principles concerning coercion are explored with a view to applying them to genetic testing, especially in the context of insurance and participation in clinical trials. (shrink)

BackgroundAs a consequence of precision medicine initiatives, genomic technologies have rapidly spread around the world, raising questions about genetic privacy and the ethics of data sharing. Previous scholarship in bioethics and science and technology studies has made clear that different nations have varying expectations about trust, transparency, and public reason in relation to emerging technologies and their governance. The key aims of this article are to assess genetic literacy, perceptions of genetic testing, privacy concerns, and governing (...) norms amongst the Singapore population by collecting surveys.MethodsThis study investigated genetic literacy and broad public attitudes toward genetic tests in Singapore with an online public survey (n = 560). To assess potential changes in attitudes following receipt of results from a genetic test, we also surveyed undergraduate students who underwent a genetic screen as part of a university class before and after they received their test results (n = 25).ResultsPublic participants showed broad support for the use of genetic tests; scored an average of 48.9% in genetic literacy; and expressed privacy concerns over data sharing and a desire for control over their genetic data. After taking a genetic test and receiving genetic test results, students reported less fear of genetic tests while other attitudes did not change significantly.ConclusionThese findings highlight the potential of genetic education and active engagement with genetic testing to increase support and participation in genomic projects, PM, and biobanking initiatives; and they suggest that data privacy protections could potentially reduce discrimination by giving participants control over who can access their data. More specifically, these findings and the dataset we provide may be helpful in formulating culturally sensitive education programs and regulations concerning genomic technologies and data privacy. (shrink)

This paper discusses the issue of whether we have responsibilities to future generations with respect to genetic screening, including for purposes of selective abortion or discard. Future generations have been discussed at length among scholars. The concept of ‘Guardianfor Future Generations’ is tackled and its main criticisms discussed. Whilst germ-line cures, it is argued, can only affect family trees, genetic screening and testing can have wider implications. If asking how this may affect future generations is (...) a legitimate question and since we indeed make retrospective moral judgements, it would be wise to consider that future generations will make the same retrospective judgements on us. Moreover such technologies affect present embryos to which we indeed can be considered to have an obligation. (shrink)

Beauchamp and Childress’ definition of autonomous decision‐making includes the conditions of intentionality, understanding, and non‐control. In genetics, however, a relational conception of autonomy has been increasingly recognized. This article aims to empirically assess aspects of social influence in genetic testing decision‐making and to connect these with principlist and relational theories of autonomy. We interviewed 18 adult genetic counsellees without capacity issues considering predictive genetic testing for cancer predisposition for themselves and two counselling physicians in Switzerland. (...) We conducted a qualitative analysis, building on a grounded theory study about predictive genetic testing decision‐making. We found that some participants agreed to predictive genetic testing predominantly because relatives wanted them to do it, with some even acting contrary to their own convictions. Others, in contrast, based their decision on purely individualistic reasons but expressed difficulties in explaining their decision to their social environment. Healthcare professionals had a critical influence on decision‐making in many cases without being manipulative, as perceived by counsellees. Still, cases of coercion and social pressure occurred within social relationships. In conclusion, predictive genetic testing decision‐making includes relational and individualistic aspects, and both are compatible with autonomous decision‐making. While the principlist and relational notions of autonomy compete on a theoretical level, they are two sides of the same coin when used as analytical lenses for genetic testing decision‐making. Social acceptance of refusal of testing should be improved to mitigate social pressure. Individuals should be encouraged to decide for themselves how much their social environment influences their decision regarding predictive genetic testing. (shrink)

This paper provides an empirical account of commercial genetic predisposition testing in mainland China, based on interviews with company mangers, regulators and clients, and literature research during fieldwork in mainland China from July to September 2006. This research demonstrates that the commercialization of genetic testing and the lack of adequate regulation have created an environment in which dubious advertising practices and misleading and unprofessional medical advice are commonplace. The consequences of these ethically problematic activities for the (...) users of predictive tests are, as yet, unknown. The paper concludes with a bioethical and social science perspective on the social and ethical issues raised by the dissemination and utilization of genetic testing in mainland China. (shrink)

The increasing availability of DNA-based diagnostic tests has raised issues about whether these should be applied to the population at large in order to identify, treat or prevent a range of diseases. DNA tests raise concerns in the community for several reasons. There is the possibility of stigmatisation and discrimination between those who test positive and those who don't. High-risk individuals may be identified for whom no proven effective intervention is possible, or conversely may test "positive" for a disease that (...) does not eventuate. Controversy concerning prenatal diagnosis and termination of affected pregnancies may arise. Haemochromatosis, however, is a disease that is not only treatable but also preventable if those at high risk are identified presymptomatically. This paper will identify and discuss key issues regarding DNA-based population screening for haemochromatosis, and argue that population-based genetic screening for haemochromatosis should be supported when a number of contentious issues are addressed. In the context of a health system with limited resources haemochromatosis is the paradigm of a disorder where there is an ethical and clinical imperative to encourage presymptomatic DNA testing for all in ethnically relevant communities. (shrink)

Public statements by various international groups emphasize that decisions to undergo genetic screening, either for disease-carrier status or for predisposition-to-disease status, and decisions about the use of the resulting information should be made voluntarily by the party to be screened. For example, the World Medical Association, in its Declaration on the Human Genome Project, says, “One should respect the will of persons screened and their right to decide about participation and about the use of the information obtained.” Giving (...) this principle a name, “voluntarism,” the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, in its Declaration of Inuyama, announced that “voluntarism should be the guiding principle in the provision of genetic services. (shrink)

This analysis scrutinises the rhetorical strategies used by judges in wrongful life and wrongful birth actions as evidence for the assertion that the judicial reading of public policy in such cases has undergone a significant shift which is likely to accelerate as genetic knowledge grows and health care resources shrink. The implications of the predicted move towards increased genetic testing of prospective parents are traversed in relation to feminist analyses of the impact of genetics on reproductive technology. (...) These are viewed as forming a nexus with the current social constructions of disability and the contemporary cultural preoccupation with risk, in a context of the increasing commercial importance of genetic information. It is argued that women cannot make free and informed choices about genetic testing and pregnancy unless legal and social mechanisms which protect those choices are in place. (shrink)

The ArgumentPressures to lower health-care costs remain an important stimulus to eugenic approaches. Prenatal diagnosis followed by abortion of affected fetuses has replaced sterilization as the major eugenic technique. Voluntary acceptance has replaced coercion, but subtle pressures undermine personal autonomy. The failure of the old eugenics to accurately predict who will have affected offspring virtually disappears when prenatal diagnosis is used to predict Mendelian disorders. However, when prenatal diagnosis is used to detect inherited susceptibilities to adult-onset, common, complex disorders, considerable (...) uncertainty is inherent in the prediction. Intolerance and the resurgence of genetic determinism are current pressures for a eugenic approach. The increasing use of carrier screening and of prenatal diagnosis could itself generate intolerance for those who refuse the procedures. Genetic determinism deflects society from social action that would reduce the burden of disease far more than even the maximum use of eugenics. (shrink)

Public statements by various international groups emphasize that decisions to undergo genetic screening, either for disease-carrier status or for predisposition-to-disease status, and decisions about the use of the resulting information should be made voluntarily by the party to be screened. For example, the World Medical Association, in its Declaration on the Human Genome Project, says, “One should respect the will of persons screened and their right to decide about participation and about the use of the information obtained.” Giving (...) this principle a name, “voluntarism,” the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, in its Declaration of Inuyama , announced that “voluntarism should be the guiding principle in the provision of genetic services. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to provide a critical examination of two aspects of culture and biomedicine that have helped to shape the meaning and practice of genetic testing for breast cancer. These are: the cultural construction of fear of breast cancer, which has been fuelled in part by the predominance of a ‘risk’ paradigm in contemporary biomedicine. The increasing elaboration and delineation of risk factors and risk numbers are in part intended to help women to contend (...) with their fear of breast cancer. However, because there is no known cure or foolproof prevention for breast cancer, risk designations bring with them recommendations for vigilant surveillance strategies and screening guidelines. We argue that these in effect exacerbate women’s fears of breast cancer itself. The volatile combination of discourses of fear, risk and surveillance have significant ethical and social consequences for women’s lives and well-being. Genetic testing decisions are made within this context; if nurses understand this context they can play an important role in helping women to cope with the anxiety and fear of breast cancer risk. (shrink)

Genetic testing raises concerns that individuals will be denied health insurance (and thus, effectively, access to health care), or that employers will screen to eliminate potentially costly workers. Although we as a society do not yet concur on the degree to which private businesses have a responsibility to promote social justice, several different policy alternatives might allow us to weigh the interests of insurers, as businesses, against the interests of citizens in a responsible manner.

The purpose of this article is to provide a critical examination of two aspects of culture and biomedicine that have helped to shape the meaning and practice of genetic testing for breast cancer. These are: (1) the cultural construction of fear of breast cancer, which has been fuelled in part by (2) the predominance of a ‘risk’ paradigm in contemporary biomedicine. The increasing elaboration and delineation of risk factors and risk numbers are in part intended to help women (...) to contend with their fear of breast cancer. However, because there is no known cure or foolproof prevention for breast cancer, risk designations bring with them recommendations for vigilant surveillance strategies and screening guidelines. We argue that these in effect exacerbate women’s fears of breast cancer itself. The volatile combination of discourses of fear, risk and surveillance have significant ethical and social consequences for women’s lives and well-being. Genetic testing decisions are made within this context; if nurses understand this context they can play an important role in helping women to cope with the anxiety and fear of breast cancer risk. (shrink)

Technological advances in genetic testing have enabled prospective parents to learn about their risk of passing a genetic condition to their future children. One option for those who want to ensure that their biological children do not inherit a genetic condition is to create embryos through in vitro fertilisation and use a technique called preimplantation genetic testing to screen embryos for genetic abnormalities before implantation. Unfortunately, due to its high cost, IVF-with-PGT is out (...) of reach for the vast majority of Americans. This article addresses an issue that has been underexplored in the medical ethics literature: the lack of insurance coverage for IVF-with-PGT.Within the US system, a key concept in insurance is that of medically necessary care, which broadly consists of diagnostic services and treatment services. In this article, I argue that IVF-with-PGT could be classified as either a diagnostic service or as a treatment service. To make this case, I show that IVF-with-PGT is similar to other types of services that are often covered by US insurance providers. In light of these similarities, I argue that the current system is inconsistent with respect to what is—and is not—covered by insurance. To promote consistency and fairness in coverage, like cases should be treated alike—starting with greater coverage for IVF-with-PGT. (shrink)

The application of genetic technologies in China, especially in the area of prenatal genetic testing, is rapidly increasing in China. In the wealthy regions of China, prenatal genetic testing is already very widely adopted. We argue that the government should actively promote prenatal genetic testing to the poor areas of the country. In fact, the government should prioritize resources first to make prenatal genetic testing a standard routine care with an opt-out (...) model in these area. Healthcare professions would be required to inform pregnant women about the availability of genetic testing and provide free testing on a routine basis unless the parents choose not to do so. We argue that this proposal will allow parents to make a more informed decision about their reproductive choices. Secondarily, this proposal will attract more healthcare professionals and other healthcare resources to improve the healthcare infrastructures in the less-developed regions of the country. This will help to reduce the inequity of accessing healthcare services between in different regions of China. We further argue that this policy proposal is not practicing eugenics. (shrink)

Genetic discrimination is becoming an increasingly important problem in the United States. Information acquired from genetic tests has been used by insurance companies to reject applications for insurance policies and to refuse payment for the treatment of illnesses. Numerous states and the United States Congress have passed or are considering passage of laws that would forbid such use of genetic information by health insurance companies. Here we argue that much of this legislation is severely flawed because of (...) the difficulty in distinguishing genetic from nongenetic tests. In addition, barring the use by insurance companies of a genetic test but not a nongenetic test (conceivably for the same multifactorial disease) raises issues of fairness in health insurance. These arguments suggest that ultimately the problems arising from genetic discrimination cannot be solved by narrowly focused legislation but only by a modification of the entire health care system. (shrink)

In this essay, I indicate how social-science approaches can throw light on predictive genetic testing (PGT) in various societal contexts. In the first section, I discuss definitions of various forms of PGT, and point out their inherent ambiguity and inappropriateness when taken out of an ideal–typical context. In section two, I argue further that an ethics approach proceeding from the point of view of the abstract individual in a given society should be supplemented by an approach that regards (...) bioethics as inherently ambiguous, contested, changeable and context-dependent. In the last section, I place these bioethical discussions of PGT in the context of Asian communities. Here, a critical view of what constitutes a community and culture proves necessary to understand the role of bioethical debates and the empirical manifestations of PGT in Asian societies. A discussion of the concepts of family and kinship in relation to PGT indicates that any bioethical analysis has to take into account that bioethical values are not just reflections of a cultural community, but embody both bioethical ideals and prevalent political rhetoric which is exhibited, propagated and manipulated by individuals and collectives for a variety of purposes. I end by summarising the contributions that social science could make to the understanding of the bioethics of PGT. (shrink)

Genetic testing in the workplace is a technology both full of promise and fraught with ethical peril. Though not yet common, it is likely to become increasingly so. We survey the key arguments in favour of such testing, along with the most significant ethical worries. We further propose a set of pragmatic criteria, which, if met, would make it permissible for employers to offer (but not to require) workplace genetic testing.

With the new and highly accurate noninvasive prenatal test, new options for screening become available. I contend that the current state of the art of NIPT is already in need of a thorough ethical investigation and that there are different points to consider before any chromosomal or subchromosomal condition is added to the screening panel of a publicly funded screening program. Moreover, the application of certain ethical principles makes the inclusion of some conditions unethical in a privately (...) funded scheme, even if such screening would enhance a woman’s reproductive autonomy. On the one hand, a screening program aimed solely at the detection of Down syndrome is subject to the technological imperative and should be reassessed in the light of technologies that allow for the detection of conditions that are at least as severe. On the other hand, some chromosomal conditions should not be included in any screening programs, because this would violate certain ethical principles, such as the right of the future child to genetic privacy. (shrink)

In 1969, the field of human genetics was in its infancy. Amniocentesis was a new technique for prenatal diagnosis, and a newborn genetic screening program had been established in one state. There were also concerns about the potential hazards of genetic engineering. A research group at the Hastings Center and Paul Ramsey pioneered in the discussion of genetics and bioethics. Two principal techniques have emerged as being of enduring importance: human gene transfer research and genetic (...) class='Hi'>testing and screening. This essay tracks the development and use of these techniques and considers the ethical issues that they raise. (shrink)

Informed consent is a key condition for prenatal screening programmes to reach their aim of promoting reproductive autonomy. Reaching this aim is currently being challenged with the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in first-trimester prenatal screening programmes: amongst others its procedural ease—it only requires a blood draw and reaches high levels of reliability—might hinder women’s understanding that they should make a personal, informed decision about screening. We offer arguments for a renewed recognition and use of (...) informed consent compared to informed choice, and for a focus on value-consistent choices and personalized informational preferences. We argue for a three-step counselling model in which three decision moments are distinguished and differently addressed: (1) professionals explore women’s values concerning whether and why they wish to know whether their baby has a genetic disorder; (2) women receive layered medical-technical information and are asked to make a decision about screening; (3) during post-test counselling, women are supported in decision-making about the continuation or termination of their pregnancy. This model might also be applicable in other fields of genetic (pre-test) counselling, where techniques for expanding genome analysis and burdensome test-outcomes challenge counselling of patients. (shrink)

Informed consent is a key condition for prenatal screening programmes to reach their aim of promoting reproductive autonomy. Reaching this aim is currently being challenged with the introduction of non‐invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in first‐trimester prenatal screening programmes: amongst others its procedural ease—it only requires a blood draw and reaches high levels of reliability—might hinder women’s understanding that they should make a personal, informed decision about screening. We offer arguments for a renewed recognition and use of (...) informed consent compared to informed choice, and for a focus on value‐consistent choices and personalized informational preferences. We argue for a three‐step counselling model in which three decision moments are distinguished and differently addressed: (1) professionals explore women’s values concerning whether and why they wish to know whether their baby has a genetic disorder; (2) women receive layered medical‐technical information and are asked to make a decision about screening; (3) during post‐test counselling, women are supported in decision‐making about the continuation or termination of their pregnancy. This model might also be applicable in other fields of genetic (pre‐test) counselling, where techniques for expanding genome analysis and burdensome test‐outcomes challenge counselling of patients. (shrink)

The ability to determine genetic predisposition to cancer represents an opportunity to expand cancer control efforts in a manner that was previously unimaginable. This possibility also forces individual patients, families, health care professionals, and society to confront difficult questions about genetic knowledge. Although genetic testing or screening for cancer risk may hold promise of cancer control benefits, this prospect also raises significant ethical and legal concerns that must inform and shape policy decisions. In “Cancer (...) class='Hi'>Genetic Susceptibility Testing,” Benjamin Wilfond and the Cancer Genetic Screening Consortium present a status report and an ambitious agenda for future examination of ethical and policy issues in this embryonic field. The paper provides a provocative and timely discussion of some extremely vexing issues, but it also misses on several critical points. (shrink)