Genetics and bioethics: How our thinking has changed since 1969

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 testing and screening. This essay tracks the development and use of these techniques and considers the ethical issues that they raise.     

Conceptualizing Genetic Counseling as Psychotherapy in the Era of Genomic Medicine

Discussions about genetic contributions to medical illness have become increasingly commonplace. Physicians and other health-care providers in all quarters of medicine, from oncology to psychiatry, routinely field questions about the genetic basis of the medical conditions they treat. Communication about genetic testing and risk also enter into these conversations, as knowledge about genetics is increasingly expected of all medical specialists. Attendant to this evolving medical landscape is some uncertainty regarding the future of the genetic counseling profession, with the potential for both increases and decreases in demand for genetic counselors being possible outcomes. This emerging uncertainty provides the opportunity to explicitly conceptualize the potentially distinct value and contributions of the genetic counselor over and above education about genetics and risk that may be provided by other health professionals. In this paper we suggest conceptualizing genetic counseling as a highly circumscribed form of psychotherapy in which effective communication of genetic information is a central therapeutic goal. While such an approach is by no means new—in 1979 Seymour Kessler explicitly described genetic counseling as a “kind of psychotherapeutic encounter,” an “interaction with a psychotherapeutic potential”—we expand on his view, and provide research evidence in support of our position. We review available evidence from process and outcome studies showing that genetic counseling is a therapeutic encounter that cannot be reduced to one where the counselor performs a simple “conduit for information” function, without losing effectiveness. We then discuss potential barriers that may have impeded greater uptake of a psychotherapeutic model of practice, and close by discussing implications for practice.     

The Evolution of Cancer Risk Assessment in the Era of Next Generation Sequencing

Cancer genetics professionals face a new opportunity and challenge in adapting to the availability of cancer genetic testing panels, now available as a result of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology. While cancer panels have been available for over a year, we believe that there is not yet enough data to create practice guidelines. Despite this, a year of experience allows us to provide our opinion on points to consider as cancer genetic counselors incorporate this testing technology into genetic counseling practice models. NGS technology offers the ability to potentially diagnose hereditary cancer syndromes more efficiently by testing many genes at once for a fraction of what it would cost to test each gene individually. However, there are limitations and additional risks to consider with these tests. Obtaining informed consent for concurrent testing of multiple genes requires that genetics professionals modify their discussions with patients regarding the potential cancer risks and the associated implications to medical management. We propose dividing the genes on each panel into categories that vary by degree of cancer risk (e.g. penetrance of the syndrome) and availability of management guidelines, with the aim to improve patient understanding of the range of information that can come from this testing. The increased risk for identifying variants of uncertain significance (VUS) when testing many genes at once must be discussed with patients. Pretest genetic counseling must also include the possibility to receive unexpected results as well as the potential to receive a result in the absence of related medical management guidelines. It is also important to consider whether a single gene test remains the best testing option for some patients. As panels expand, it is important that documentation reflects exactly which genes have been analyzed for each patient. While this technology holds the promise of more efficient diagnosis for many of our patients, it also comes with new challenges that we must recognize and address.     

Genetic Testing Integration Panels (GTIPs): A Novel Approach for Considering Integration of Direct-To-Consumer and Other New Genetic Tests into Patient Care

There has been a dramatic increase in the number of genetic tests available but few tests have practice guidelines. In addition, many tests have become available outside of clinical settings through direct-to-consumer (DTC) companies and several offer tests not considered standard of care. To address several practical challenges associated with the rapid introduction of clinical and DTC genetic tests, we propose that genetic counselors and geneticists organize expert panels in their institutions to discuss the integration of new tests into patient care. We propose the establishment of Genetic Testing Integration Panels (GTIPs) to bring together local experts in medical genetics, genetic counseling, bioethics and law, health communication and clinical laboratory genetics. We describe key features of this approach and consider some of the potential advantages and limitations of using a GTIP to address the many clinical challenges raised by rapidly emerging clinical and DTC genetic tests.     

GENETICS AND THE ETHICS OF COMMUNITY

At times decisions are made in the field of genetics that are presented as if the ethical debates have been adequately treated and so all moral considerations have been addressed, when the truth is very different. Nor is it always easy or desirable to separate the ethical, legal and social questions posed by new developments. The impact of developments in genetic science upon communities is one field of enquiry that envelops each of these areas. This paper explores the impact of genetics upon communities through focusing, in particular, upon certain developments in reproductive science. After introducing core issues and technologies, it discusses particular ethical concerns in relation to the ‘shadow’ of eugenics over such developments, before exploring the role of legislative debates and procedures in transforming social attitudes, values and hence norms. It then turns to consider debates concerning the ‘quality of life ethic’ now prevalent in healthcare, and moves on to discuss the issue of genetic discrimination – focusing, in particular, upon discrimination against disabled persons as a representative instance of the actual ethical and social/communitarian implications of the foregoing. It ends by highlighting the need to discern the ways in which the ethics of genetics is presently shaped and practised in order to discern better the particular social and communitarian implications of certain technological advances.     

Knowledge of Breast Cancer Genetics Among Breast Cancer Patients and First-Degree Relatives of Affected Individuals

The cloning of BRCA1, a susceptibility gene for inherited breast cancer, has made genetic screening possible for individuals and families whose medical histories are suggestive of an inherited predisposition to breast cancer. To date, few systematic attempts have been made to determine the level of knowledge about breast cancer genetics among women who are likely to seek BRCA1 screening when it becomes widely available. The present study attempted to assess the general knowledge about BRCA1 mutations in two groups: (1) first-degree relatives (FDRs) of breast cancer patients; and (2) women with a previous diagnosis of breast cancer. A self-administered, thirty-item questionnaire was developed through a pilot study. Ten of the items were objective, factual questions about breast cancer genetics. Responses to these questions were used to generate an overall knowledge score for each respondent. The study population was moderately knowledgeable about breast cancer genetics, with an average score of 5.35 out of 10. Counselors should not underestimate the importance of evaluating each counselee's existing knowledge about breast cancer, which can affect the provision and reception of genetic information. In particular, specific areas of knowledge that may be confusing or misunderstood were identified and these topics are discussed in detail.     

Nondirectiveness and genetic counseling

Nondirectiveness is the generally required and professed standard for genetic counseling. However, studies are lacking in the field of human genetics and in other disciplines which address either the theory or practice of this type of therapeutic procedure in the context of genetic counseling. Moreover, there is no indication the further development this concept has undergone in client-centered therapy has been acknowledged in human genetics. This could be due tot he historical development of genetic counseling, its inherent conflicts and often undefined goals, and the latent need of human geneticists to defend themselves against being accused of eugenic tendencies. Nondirectiveness and directiveness, however, can neither adequately describe what takes place in genetic counseling, nor can they — according to their original meaning — be used to define an ethical standard of genetic counseling. Starting with the writings by Carl Rogers (1942), an experiential approach is described, in which counseling is seen as a process of influence, which is wished by all the persons involved, during which activities are oriented toward the experience of the client, and which allows the counselor to communicate openly and directly with the client. The present study illustrates the use of the experiential approach in genetic counseling and shows that it can uphold the principle of ethics, which nondirectiveness demands and, at the same time, prevent the inevitable and unresolvable contradictions. This means that in their training genetic counselors must learn to recognize and constantly reflect on the influence they can and want to exert. In order to be able to use this influence in a responsible manner, genetic counselors must also learn to have a certain degree of flexibility so that they are able to check at any time how their client responds to this influence.     

Training Genetic Counsellors to Deliver an Innovative Therapeutic Intervention: their Views and Experience of Facilitating Multi-Family Discussion Groups

Innovations in clinical genetics have increased diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of inherited genetic conditions (IGCs). This has led to an increased number of families seeking genetic testing and / or genetic counselling and increased the clinical load for genetic counsellors (GCs). Keeping pace with biomedical discoveries, interventions are required to support families to understand, communicate and cope with their Inherited Genetic Condition. The Socio-Psychological Research in Genomics (SPRinG) collaborative have developed a new intervention, based on multi-family discussion groups (MFDGs), to support families affected by IGCs and train GCs in its delivery. A potential challenge to implementing the intervention was whether GCs were willing and able to undergo the training to deliver the MFDG. In analysing three multi-perspective interviews with GCs, this paper evaluates the training received. Findings suggests that MFDGs are a potential valuable resource in supporting families to communicate genetic risk information and can enhance family function and emotional well-being. Furthermore, we demonstrate that it is feasible to train GCs in the delivery of the intervention and that it has the potential to be integrated into clinical practice. Its longer term implementation into routine clinical practice however relies on changes in both organisation of clinical genetics services and genetic counsellors’ professional development.     

Factors Which Impact the Delivery of Genetic Risk Assessment Services Focused on Inherited Cancer Genomics: Expanding the Role and Reach of Certified Genetics Professionals

There is tremendous excitement about the promise of new genomic technologies to transform medical practice and improve patient care. Although the full power of genetic diagnosis has not yet been realized, paradigms of clinical decision-making are changing. In fact, recent policy level changes to promote genetic counseling by certified genetics professionals (GP) such as genetic counselors and clinical geneticists, are occurring at both the payer and state level. However, there remain opportunities to develop policies within the United States to: 1) enhance the access to the limited workforce of GPs; 2) revise reimbursement schemes such that costs to deliver these services may be recouped by institutions with GPs; and 3) protect against the potential for discrimination based on genetic information. Although many of these issues predate advances in genomic technologies, they are exacerbated by them, with increasing access and awareness as costs of testing decrease. Consequently, evolving shifts in national policies poise GPs to serve as a hub of information and may be instrumental in facilitating new models to deliver genetics-based care through promoting academic-community partnerships and interfacing with non-GPs. As we acknowledge the potential for genomics to revolutionize medical practice, the expertise of GPs may be leveraged to facilitate incorporation of this information into mainstream medicine.     

The Last Shall Be First: Human Potential in Genetic and Theological Perspectives

The notion of “human potential” provides a fruitful window through which to explore the competing conceptual frameworks of contemporary genetics and Christianity. The contemporary cultural frame of genetics conceives of human potential in a broadly positive manner: the source of personal and societal flourishing is located within individual bodies, waiting to be identified and unleashed by genetic science and medicine for the good of persons and society. In the Judeo-Christian narrative, human individual, biological potential is far less relevant—and, in fact, may be construed as an impediment to the achievement of personal and social flourishing. Implications for the dialogue between genetics and religion are discussed.     

The future of genetics in public health

During the 1980s, we have witnessed an erosion in federal and state funding for the coordination of genetic services in state health departments. As this decade begins, the federal budget for the support of the national genetics program is less than half of the total available in 1980. In addition, priorities in state maternal and child health programs have changed, and genetic services have often received lower rankings aside of programs to improve prenatal care and to address problems such as teenage pregnancy. Clearly we are at a critical point for the future of genetics programs in the public health arena. Fortunately, despite the problems with funding and priority setting, important coalitions have been built during the past decade and continued advances in medical genetics have made it difficult for public health officials to ignore the potential impact of genetic services. Council of Regional Networks for Genetic Services (CORN) and the regional genetic services networks have provided opportunities for interaction and coordination between genetic services providers and public health officials that had not been available to any significant extent. The full potential of these coalitions has yet to be realized, but efforts in data collection, development of national guidelines and standards, and information sharing and networking have already had an influence on state genetic services programs. Continuing research on the genetics of chronic diseases and the influence of discoveries in molecular genetics will undoubtedly broaden the current scope of state public health programs in genetics, which all too often have been limited to newborn screening and administration of grants for genetic services. The regional and national genetic services programs should be strengthened and appropriate training programs should be developed in Schools of Public Health to provide the expertise and leadership that will be needed to guide the future of genetics in public health.     

Desperately seeking perfection: Christian discipleship and medical genetics.

The question of what, if anything, Christian theology as theology might contribute to ethical debates about appropriate uses of medical genetics has often been ignored. The answer is complex, and the author argues it is best characterized by an explanation of the analogous aspirations of the two: both have as their goal the perfection of the human being, both assert that the present disposition of the human body is on a fundamental level more often than not other than it ought to be, and both aspire to transform the present state of the body toward a future state in which present imperfections no longer exist. Given these analogous concerns, it would seem that one of the primary moral contributions that Christianity can make to debates about medical genetics is to ask whether and to what extent the Christian vision of embodied human perfection is compatible with the vision of perfection offered by the sciences pertaining to medical genetics. The author pursues a discussion of this analogy and its implications in this essay.     

Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomic Testing: A Case Study and Practical Recommendations for “Genomic Counseling”

Technological advances and information-seeking consumers have pushed forward the movement of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. Just like with other types of testing, there are potential risks, benefits and limitations. A major limitation of DTC testing is the incomplete view it provides regarding lifetime risk for common, complex diseases, since most tests only analyze 1–2 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and do not include evaluation of medical or family histories, which is necessary to risk assessment. Further, it is not currently well-established whether personal genomic testing results will lead toward improved health behaviors, adverse psychological effects or potential overuse of the health care system. To display these and other issues, we present an in-depth case study of an individual who ordered DTC genetic testing and subsequently sought genetic counseling. This case presents a unique learning experience for the field of genomic counseling, as the patient did not fit the typical assumptions regarding ‘early adopters’ of DTC testing. It also allowed the genetics health care providers involved in the case to identify gaps in current genetic counseling practice that need to be filled and approaches to employ for successful delivery of genomic counseling. Based on our experience, we developed practical recommendations for genomic counseling, which include novel approaches to case preparation, use of electronic tools during the counseling session, and focusing on education as the major component of the genomic counseling session, in order to provide patients with the knowledge necessary to independently interpret and understand large amounts of genomic testing information provided to them.     

Attitudes toward genetic counseling and prenatal diagnosis among a group of individuals with physical disabilities

Few studies have been published on the attitudes of people with physical disabilities toward genetic counseling and prenatal diagnosis. Articles in the lay press and social science literature on this topic, mainly written by disability rights activists and advocates, imply opposition to prenatal diagnosis and the field of clinical genetics by the physically disabled population. In this study, 15 adults with physical disabilities were interviewed regarding their attitudes toward genetic counseling and prenatal diagnosis. Genetic counseling and prenatal diagnosis were generally viewed favorably by this sample of the disability community. Only a small percentage of the sample perceived genetics to be eugenic. Implications for genetic counseling and future research are discussed.     

Inherited Thrombophilia: Key Points for Genetic Counseling

With the evolution of medical genetics to focus on highly prevalent, multifactorial conditions, it is inevitable that genetic counselors will be called upon to participate in the evaluation and counseling of individuals with inherited thrombophilia. The purpose of this review is to educate the genetic counselor on key issues related to risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary thrombophilia. The information contained in this document is derived from an extensive review of the literature, as well as the author's personal expertise. Upon completion of this review, the genetic counselor will be able to: a) describe inherited and acquired risk factors for thrombosis, b) collect and interpret personal and family histories to assess risk related to hereditary thrombophilia, c) discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of thrombophilia testing, including psychosocial aspects and implications for medical management, and d) identify educational and support resources for patients and families.     

Attitudes and Practices Among Internists Concerning Genetic Testing

Many questions remain concerning whether, when, and how physicians order genetic tests, and what factors are involved in their decisions. We surveyed 220 internists from two academic medical centers about their utilization of genetic testing. Rates of genetic utilizations varied widely by disease. Respondents were most likely to have ordered tests for Factor V Leiden (16.8 %), followed by Breast/Ovarian Cancer (15.0 %). In the past 6 months, 65 % had counseled patients on genetic issues, 44 % had ordered genetic tests, 38.5 % had referred patients to a genetic counselor or geneticist, and 27.5 % had received ads from commercial labs for genetic testing. Only 4.5 % had tried to hide or disguise genetic information, and <2 % have had patients report genetic discrimination. Only 53.4 % knew of a geneticist/genetic counselor to whom to refer patients. Most rated their knowledge as very/somewhat poor concerning genetics (73.7 %) and guidelines for genetic testing (87.1 %). Most felt needs for more training on when to order tests (79 %), and how to counsel patients (82 %), interpret results (77.3 %), and maintain privacy (80.6 %). Physicians were more likely to have ordered a genetic test if patients inquired about genetic testing (p?<?.001), and if physicians had a geneticist/genetic counselor to whom to refer patients (p?<?.002), had referred patients to a geneticist/genetic counselor in the past 6 months, had more comfort counseling patients about testing (p?<?.019), counseled patients about genetics, larger practices (p?<?.032), fewer African-American patients (p?<?.027), and patients who had reported genetic discrimination (p?<?.044). In a multiple logistic regression, ordering a genetic test was associated with patients inquiring about testing, having referred patients to a geneticist/genetic counselor and knowing how to order tests. These data suggest that physicians recognize their knowledge deficits, and are interested in training. These findings have important implications for future medical practice, research, and education.     

Genetic Counseling Services and Development of Training Programs in Malaysia

Genetic counseling service is urgently required in developing countries. In Malaysia, the first medical genetic service was introduced in 1994 at one of the main teaching hospitals in Kuala Lumpur. Two decades later, the medical genetic services have improved with the availability of genetic counseling, genetic testing and diagnosis, for both paediatric conditions and adult-onset inherited conditions, at four main centers of medical genetic services in Malaysia. Prenatal diagnosis services and assisted reproductive technologies are available at tertiary centres and private medical facilities. Positive developments include governmental recognition of Clinical Genetics as a subspecialty, increased funding for genetics services, development of medical ethics guidelines, and establishment of support groups. However, the country lacked qualified genetic counselors. Proposals were presented to policy-makers to develop genetic counseling courses. Challenges encountered included limited resources and public awareness, ethical dilemmas such as religious and social issues and inadequate genetic health professionals especially genetic counselors.     

Religion and the Human Genome

The study of human genetics, now greatly accelerated by the federal Human Genome Project, raises important religious questions about human health, two of which are explored. To the first question—whether to terminate a pregnancy for genetic reasons—it is suggested that a pregnancy with a serious genetic defect may be considered at the same level of moral gravity as pregnancy from rape or incest, thereby permitting termination. To the second question—whether genetic predispositions negate personal responsibility—it is argued that genes affect but do not determine personality and behavior.The author wishes to thank Ian Barbour, Gene Fowler, Olivia White, Ted Peters, Brent Waters, and Russell Willis for many helpful criticisms of an earlier draft of this article. Appreciation is also expressed to Memphis Theological Seminary for granting a study leave during which this article was written.     

Exploring the Public Understanding of Basic Genetic Concepts

It is predicted that the rapid acquisition of new genetic knowledge and related applications during the next decade will have significant implications for virtually all members of society. Currently, most people get exposed to information about genes and genetics only through stories publicized in the media. We sought to understand how individuals in the general population used and understood the concepts of “genetics” and “genes.” During in-depth one-on-one telephone interviews with adults in the United States, we asked questions exploring their basic understanding of these terms, as well as their belief as to the location of genes in the human body. A wide range of responses was received. Despite conversational familiarity with genetic terminology, many noted frustration or were hesitant when trying to answer these questions. In addition, some responses reflected a lack of understanding about basic genetic science that may have significant implications for broader public education measures in genetic literacy, genetic counseling, public health practices, and even routine health care.