Yvonne Bombard

Points to Consider: Ethical, Legal, and Psychosocial Implications of Genetic Testing in Children and Adolescents

In 1995, the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) and American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) jointly published a statement on genetic testing in children and adolescents. In the past 20 years, much has changed in the field of genetics, including the development of powerful new technologies, new data from genetic research on children and adolescents, and substantial clinical experience. This statement represents current opinion by the ASHG on the ethical, legal, and social issues concerning genetic testing in children. These recommendations are relevant to families, clinicians, and investigators. After a brief review of the 1995 statement and major changes in genetic technologies in recent years, this statement offers points to consider on a broad range of test technologies and their applications in clinical medicine and research. Recommendations are also made for record and communication issues in this domain and for professional education.

Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening.

This paper contains a joint ESHG/ASHG position document with recommendations regarding responsible innovation in prenatal screening with non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). By virtue of its greater accuracy and safety with respect to prenatal screening for common autosomal aneuploidies, NIPT has the potential of helping the practice better achieve its aim of facilitating autonomous reproductive choices, provided that balanced pretest information and non-directive counseling are available as part of the screening offer. Depending on the health-care setting, different scenarios for NIPT-based screening for common autosomal aneuploidies are possible. The trade-offs involved in these scenarios should be assessed in light of the aim of screening, the balance of benefits and burdens for pregnant women and their partners and considerations of cost-effectiveness and justice. With improving screening technologies and decreasing costs of sequencing and analysis, it will become possible in the near future to significantly expand the scope of prenatal screening beyond common autosomal aneuploidies. Commercial providers have already begun expanding their tests to include sex-chromosomal abnormalities and microdeletions. However, multiple false positives may undermine the main achievement of NIPT in the context of prenatal screening: the significant reduction of the invasive testing rate. This document argues for a cautious expansion of the scope of prenatal screening to serious congenital and childhood disorders, only following sound validation studies and a comprehensive evaluation of all relevant aspects. A further core message of this document is that in countries where prenatal screening is offered as a public health programme, governments and public health authorities should adopt an active role to ensure the responsible innovation of prenatal screening on the basis of ethical principles. Crucial elements are the quality of the screening process as a whole (including non-laboratory aspects such as information and counseling), education of professionals, systematic evaluation of all aspects of prenatal screening, development of better evaluation tools in the light of the aim of the practice, accountability to all stakeholders including children born from screened pregnancies and persons living with the conditions targeted in prenatal screening and promotion of equity of access.

Perceptions of genetic discrimination among people at risk for Huntington’s disease: a cross sectional survey

Objective To assess the nature and prevalence of genetic discrimination experienced by people at risk for Huntington’s disease who had undergone genetic testing or remained untested. Design Cross sectional, self reported survey. Setting Seven genetics and movement disorders clinics servicing rural and urban communities in Canada. Participants 233 genetically tested and untested asymptomatic people at risk for Huntington’s disease (response rate 80%): 167 underwent testing (83 had the Huntington’s disease mutation, 84 did not) and 66 chose not to be tested. Main outcome measures Self reported experiences of genetic discrimination and related psychological distress based on family history or genetic test results. Results Discrimination was reported by 93 respondents (39.9%). Reported experiences occurred most often in insurance (29.2%), family (15.5%), and social (12.4%) settings. There were few reports of discrimination in employment (6.9%), health care (8.6%), or public sector settings (3.9%). Although respondents who were aware that they carried the Huntington’s disease mutation reported the highest levels of discrimination, participation in genetic testing was not associated with increased levels of genetic discrimination. Family history of Huntington’s disease, rather than the result of genetic testing, was the main reason given for experiences of genetic discrimination. Psychological distress was associated with genetic discrimination (P<0.001). Conclusions Genetic discrimination was commonly reported by people at risk for Huntington’s disease and was a source of psychological distress. Family history, and not genetic testing, was the major reason for genetic discrimination.

Genetic discrimination: international perspectives.

Genetic discrimination (GD) is a complex, multifaceted ethical, psychosocial, and legal phenomenon. It is defined as the differential treatment of asymptomatic individuals or their relatives on the basis of their real or assumed genetic characteristics. This article presents an overview of GD within the contemporary international context. It describes the concept of GD and its contextual features, reviews research evidence regarding peoples experiences of GD and the impact of GD within a range of domains, and provides an overview of legal and policy responses to GD that have emerged globally. We argue that GD is a significant and internationally established phenomenon that requires multilevel responses to ensure social justice and equitable outcomes for all citizens. Future research should monitor GD and its impacts within the community as well as institutions and should evaluate the effectiveness of legislative, policy, community education, and systemic responses.

Engagement with genetic discrimination: concerns and experiences in the context of Huntington disease

It has been over 20 years since the inception of predictive testing for Huntington disease (HD), yet the social implications of knowing ones genetic risk for HD have not been fully explored. Genetic discrimination (GD) is a potential risk associated with predictive testing. Although anecdotal reports of GD have been documented, there is a paucity of research on the nature and experiences of GD in the context of HD. The purpose of this study was to describe the concerns and experiences of GD in the HD community. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 45 genetically tested and 10 untested individuals and analyzed using grounded theory methods. Our findings demonstrate that a majority of individuals were concerned about (37/55) and experienced GD (32/55) across a variety of contexts that extend beyond the traditionally examined contexts of insurance and employment to include family, social, government, and health-care domains. We describe a process of engagement with GD in which individuals formed meaningful interpretations of GD and personalized its risk and consequences in their lives. Our findings provide an insight into some of the specific processes and factors influencing engagement with GD. These results help identify areas where more education and support is needed and provide direction to genetic professionals supporting their clients as they confront issues of GD and genetic testing.

Perceptions of discrimination among persons who have undergone predictive testing for Huntington's disease†

Potential discrimination from genetic testing may undermine technological advances for health care. Researching long‐term consequences of testing for genetic conditions that may lead to discrimination is a public health priority. The consequences of genetic discrimination generate social, health, and economic burdens for society by diminishing opportunities for at‐risk individuals in a range of contexts. The current study objective was to investigate perceptions of genetic stigmatization and discrimination among persons who completed predictive testing for Huntingtons disease (HD). Using semi‐structured interviews and computerized qualitative analysis, the perceptions of 15 presymptomatic persons with a positive gene test predicting HD were examined with regard to differential treatment following testing. The sample comprised 11 women and 4 men, mostly married (73%), aged between 22 and 62 years, with an average education of 14.6 years (SD ± 2.57) and residing in urban, rural and suburban settings of eight U.S. States. Participants reported perceptions of consequences following disclosure of genetic test results in three areas: employment, insurance, and social relationships. Although most employed participants (90%) revealed their test results to their employers, nearly all reported they would not disclose this information to future employers. Most (87%) participants disclosed test results to their physician, but a similar majority (83%) did not tell their genetic status to insurers. Most participants (87%) disclosed test results to family and peers; patterns of disclosure varied widely. Discrimination concerns remain high in this sample and point to the need for more information to determine the extent and scope of the problem.

Revealing the Incidentalome When Targeting the Tumor Genome

Personalized (or precision) medicine promises to use genomic information to improve the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease. This promise is particularly anticipated in the arena of cancer treatment. Academic cancer centers and commercial laboratories are rapidly developing programs to routinely analyze individual cancer genomes to identify therapeutic targets and individualize care.1 However, the process of decoding the genome of a patient’s tumor may incidentally reveal information about inherited predispositions to cancer and other diseases (the “incidentalome”). There is an urgent need to establish approaches to decision-making with respect to the return of these incidental results. Most of the DNA sequence of a patient’s tumor is identical to the DNA sequence of the normal cells of that patient (germ-line sequence). For this reason, the process of defining the potentially targetable mutations that are driving a cancer requires the delineation and “subtraction” of germ-line sequence from tumor sequence so as to identify those variations that are specific to the cancer. Incidental information can be found indirectly (when meaningful germ-line mutations are identified in the tumor sequence), or directly (in the normal DNA that is sequenced for comparison to the tumor DNA). As an example, sequencing a tumor/normal pair of samples from a lung cancer patient may reveal both an EGFR mutation to target with a specific anticancer drug (e.g. gefitinib and the incidental finding of a mutation in RYR1 that would predispose to malignant hyperthermia upon exposure to certain anesthetic agents. In many cases, however, the medical significance of incidental germ-line findings may be unclear. A vigorous ethical debate has unfolded regarding whether laboratories and clinicians have an obligation to inform patients about certain incidental findings, or if such an obligation would constitute a violation of a patient’s autonomous right to decide what genetic information he or she wishes to learn.2–4 While most of the illustrative examples chosen in this debate are drawn from clinical cancer genetics, oncologists have yet to join this discussion3.

Citizens’ Values Regarding Research With Stored Samples From Newborn Screening in Canada

OBJECTIVES: Newborn screening (NBS) programs may store bloodspot samples and use them for secondary purposes. Recent public controversies and lawsuits over storage and secondary uses underscore the need to engage the public on these issues. We explored Canadian values regarding storage and use of NBS samples for various purposes and the forms of parental choice for anonymous research with NBS samples. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods, public engagement study comprising 8 focus groups (n = 60), an educational component, deliberative discussion, and pre- and post-questionnaires assessing knowledge and values toward storage and parental choice. RESULTS: Canadian citizens supported the storage of NBS samples for quality control, confirmatory diagnosis, and future anonymous research (>90%). There was broad support for use of NBS samples for anonymous research; however, opinions were split about the extent of parental decision-making. Support for a “routinized” approach rested on trust in authorities, lack of concern for harms, and an assertion that the population’s interest took priority over the interests of individuals. Discomfort stemmed from distrust in authorities, concern for harms, and prioritizing individual interests, which supported more substantive parental choice. Consensus emerged regarding the need for greater transparency about the storage and secondary use of samples. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides novel insights into the values that underpin citizens’ acceptance and discomfort with routine storage of NBS samples for research, and supports the need to develop well-designed methods of public education and civic discourse on the risks and benefits of the retention and secondary use of NBS samples.

Managing genetic discrimination : Strategies used by individuals found to have the Huntington disease mutation

The introduction of predictive testing for Huntington disease (HD) over 20 years ago has led to the advent of a new group of individuals found to have the HD mutation that are currently asymptomatic, yet destined in all likelihood to become affected at some point in the future. Genetic discrimination, a social risk associated with predictive testing, is the differential treatment of individuals based on genotypic difference rather than physical characteristics. While evidence for genetic discrimination exists, little is known about how individuals found to have the HD mutation cope with the potential for or experiences of genetic discrimination. The purpose of this study was to explore how individuals found to have the HD mutation manage the risk and experience of genetic discrimination. Semi‐structured individual interviews were conducted with 37 individuals who were found to have the HD mutation and analysed using grounded theory methods. The findings suggest four main strategies: “keeping low”, minimizing, pre‐empting and confronting genetic discrimination. Strategies varied depending on individuals’ level of engagement with genetic discrimination and the nature of the experience (actual experience of genetic discrimination or concern for its potential). This exploratory framework may explain the variation in approaches and reactions to genetic discrimination among individuals living with an increased risk for HD and may offer insight for persons at risk for other late‐onset genetic diseases to cope with genetic discrimination.

Reconsidering reproductive benefit through newborn screening: a systematic review of guidelines on preconception, prenatal and newborn screening.

The expansion of newborn screening (NBS) has been accompanied by debate about what benefits should be achieved and the role of parental discretion in their pursuit. The opportunity to inform parents of reproductive risks is among the most valued additional benefits gained through NBS, and assumes prominence where the primary goal of identifying a treatable condition is not assured. We reviewed 53 unique guidelines addressing prenatal, preconception and newborn screening to examine: (1) how generating reproductive risk information is construed as a benefit of screening; and (2) what conditions support the realization of this benefit. Most preconception and prenatal guidelines – where generating reproductive risk information is described as a primary benefit – required that individuals be given a ‘cascade of choices’, ensuring that each step in the decision-making process was well informed, from deciding to pursue information about reproductive risks to deciding how to manage them. With the exception of three guidelines, NBS policy infrequently attended to the potential for reproductive benefits; further, most guidelines that acknowledged such benefits construed voluntarism narrowly, without attention to the choices attendant on receiving reproductive risk information. This review suggests that prenatal and preconception guidance identifies a coherent framework to support the pursuit of reproductive benefits through population screening programmes. Interestingly, attention to reproductive benefits is increasing among NBS guidance, yet reflection on how such benefits ought to be pursued remains limited. Traditional norms for NBS may require reconsideration where the remit of screening exceeds the primary goal of clinical benefits for infants.