Re-examining the Ethics of Genetic Counselling in the Genomic Era

Attitudes Towards Non-directiveness Among Medical Geneticists in Germany and Switzerland

The principle of non-directiveness remains an important tenet in genetics. However, the concept has encountered growing criticism over the last two decades. There is an ongoing discussion about its appropriateness for specific situations in genetics, especially in light of recent significant advancements in genetic medicine. Despite the debate surrounding non-directiveness, there is a notable lack of up-to-date international research empirically investigating the issue from the perspective of those who actually do genetic counselling. Addressing this gap, our article delves into the viewpoints and experiences of medical geneticists in Germany and Switzerland. Twenty qualitative interviews were analysed employing reflexive thematic analysis. Participants' responses revealed substantial uncertainties and divergences in their understanding and application of the concept. It seems to cause distress since many geneticists stated that the principle was difficult to put into clinical practice and was no longer ethically justified given the increasing likelihood of therapeutic implications resulting from genomic testing outcomes. The insights provided by our qualitative empirical study accord with the ongoing theoretical debate regarding the definition, legitimacy, and feasibility of the principle. An adequately nuanced understanding and application of non-directiveness seems crucial to circumvent the risks inherent in the principle, while promoting patient autonomy and beneficence.

Factors affecting couples' decision making about expanded prenatal cell-free DNA screening

Purpose

To assess intended parents' preferences about expanded prenatal cell-free DNA screening.

Methods

A survey was administered to couples who were pregnant or trying to conceive. Partners within couples were independently asked about willingness to seek prenatal cell-free DNA screening for diseases and traits that varied by severity, treatability, age of onset, and reliability. Additional questions explored couples' decision-making processes and how various factors would affect those decisions.

Results

Respondents (n = 494) were most likely to seek a prenatal genetic test when the test is completely predictive (P value of predictability effect = .0116), for earlier onset (P value of onset effect = .0310), treatable diseases (P value of treatability effect = .0032), and of highest severity (P value of severity effect < .0001). Living in states where termination was not available was not associated with decreased interest in prenatal screening, with 45% reporting that it would make them more likely to seek testing. There was moderate concordance between couples about their testing decisions and the majority of pregnant persons (68.8%) and partners (66.7%) desired firm screening recommendations from their doctors.

Conclusion

These data suggest that couples are highly information seeking when presented with all testing options neutrally, but most desire to be presented with firm testing recommendations from their clinician.

A balancing act: Non-directive communication, risk perceptions, and meeting patient needs in genetic counseling: A South African case study

Genetic counseling (GC) traditionally follows a non-directive counseling approach. Although a cornerstone of GC teaching and theory, there has been debate on whether GC is, can be, or should be a patient-led service due to challenges in practice, as well as the advancement and complexity of genetic testing. Personal risk perceptions and patient expectations within particular contexts may further affect how genetic counselors discuss risk information, even while attempting to remain neutral. Less is known about the process of GC communication in non-Western settings. This paper presents empirical evidence from a South African prenatal GC consultation where tensions become apparent due to differing risk perceptions and expectations between a genetic counselor and a patient, which ultimately impacts non-directive communication practice. The case study forms part of a larger qualitative study focusing on risk and uncertainty communication within GC consultations in Cape Town, South Africa. A blended sociolinguistic approach drawing on principles of conversation analysis (CA) and theme-orientated discourse analysis (TODA) provides evidence of the complexity of imparting risk information and challenging patients to reflect on their decision-making, whilst refraining from sharing personal risk perceptions during everyday practice. The case study demonstrates how a genetic counselor may become implicitly and explicitly directive in their communication approach within the same consult which may reveal their personal risk perceptions on the matter discussed. In addition, the case study reveals how a genetic counselor may grapple with the dilemma of honoring the non-directive guidelines of the profession, whilst simultaneously supporting a patient who requests advice. The ongoing debate on non-directive counseling, decision-making, and patient care in GC is important for the reflection and development of the profession to understand how to assist and support patients facing sensitive and difficult decisions, in a meaningful, and contextually-tailored manner.

Consensus recommendations on counselling in Phelan-McDermid syndrome, with special attention to recurrence risk and to ring chromosome 22

This paper focuses on genetic counselling in Phelan-McDermid syndrome (PMS), a rare neurodevelopmental disorder caused by a deletion 22q13.3 or a pathogenic variant in SHANK3. It is one of a series of papers written by the European PMS consortium as a consensus guideline. We reviewed the available literature based on pre-set questions to formulate recommendations on counselling, diagnostic work-up and surveillance for tumours related to ring chromosome 22. All recommendations were approved by the consortium, which consists of professionals and patient representatives, using a voting procedure. PMS can only rarely be diagnosed based solely on clinical features and requires confirmation via genetic testing. In most cases, the family will be referred to a clinical geneticist for counselling after the genetic diagnosis has been made. Family members will be investigated and, if indicated, the chance of recurrence discussed with them. Most individuals with PMS have a de novo deletion or a pathogenic variant of SHANK3. The 22q13.3 deletion can be a simple deletion, a ring chromosome 22, or the result of a parental balanced chromosomal anomaly, influencing the risk of recurrence. Individuals with a ring chromosome 22 have an increased risk of NF2-related schwannomatosis (formerly neurofibromatosis type 2) and atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumours, which are associated with the tumour-suppressor genes NF2 and SMARCB1, respectively, and both genes are located on chromosome 22. The prevalence of PMS due to a ring chromosome 22 is estimated to be 10-20%. The risk of developing a tumour in an individual with a ring chromosome 22 can be calculated as 2-4%. However, those individuals who do develop tumours often have multiple. We recommend referring all individuals with PMS and their parents to a clinical geneticist or a comparably experienced medical specialist for genetic counselling, further genetic testing, follow-up and discussion of prenatal diagnostic testing in subsequent pregnancies. We also recommend karyotyping to diagnose or exclude a ring chromosome 22 in individuals with a deletion 22q13.3 detected by molecular tests. If a ring chromosome 22 is found, we recommend discussing personalised follow-up for NF2-related tumours and specifically cerebral imaging between the age of 14 and 16 years.

Heterogeneous attitudinal profiles towards gene editing: Evidence from latent class analysis

Advances in gene-editing technology have important implications for the treatment and prevention of disease. Accordingly, it is important to understand public perceptions towards gene editing, as the public's willingness to endorse gene editing may be as important as technological breakthroughs themselves. Previous research has almost exclusively examined attitudes towards gene editing on specific issues, but has not addressed how attitudes towards gene editing across a range of issues coalesce in individuals: that is, the degree to which discrete, heterogeneous attitudinal profiles exist versus a simple support/oppose continuum. Here, we addressed this issue using latent class analysis on data from The Pew Research Center (N = 4726; US residents) across a wide range of gene-editing topics. We found that attitudes towards gene editing cohere into 10 distinct latent classes that showed some evidence of a support/oppose continuum, but also for clear qualitative differences between each class, even with support or oppose classes, on a number of issues. The most opposed classes significantly differed from the supporter classes in age, sex, political ideology and self-rated knowledge. These findings provide evidence that attitudes towards gene editing are heterogeneous and public discourse, as well as policy making need to consider a range of arguments when evaluating this technology.

Attitudes among parents of persons with autism spectrum disorder towards information about genetic risk and future health

Clinical relevance of genetic testing is increasing in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Information about genetic risk may contribute to improved diagnostics, treatment and family planning, but may also be perceived as a burden. Knowledge about the families' preferences with regard to genetic risk information is important for both health care professionals and policy makers. We investigated attitudes towards sharing information about genetic risk of ASD and knowledge about future health among parent members of the Norwegian Autism Association (N = 1455) using a questionnaire, and the relationships with parent and child characteristics, such as age, gender and ASD severity. Most preferred autonomy in deciding whom to inform about genetic risk of ASD (74.4%) and a minority supported extensive intra-familial disclosure of the genetic risk (41.1%). The majority agreed that it is an obligation to know as much as possible relevant for future health (58.0%) and only 51.7% agreed to a principle of a 'right not to know'. In regression models, the attitudes were associated with opinions about benefits and harms of genetic testing (e.g., treatment, family planning, understanding of ASD pathology, insurance discrimination and family conflict). In sum, the findings show that most parents want to know as much as possible relevant for their children's future health and keep their autonomy and intra-familial confidentiality about genetic risk information. Nearly half of the parents were not concerned with a "right not to know". These attitudes can inform development of guidelines and bioethics in the age of genomic precision medicine.

Communicating Personal Melanoma Polygenic Risk Information: Participants’ Experiences of Genetic Counseling in a Community-Based Study

Personalized polygenic risk information may be used to guide risk-based melanoma prevention and early detection at a population scale, but research on communicating this information is limited. This mixed-methods study aimed to assess the acceptability of a genetic counselor (GC) phone call in communicating polygenic risk information in the Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk randomized controlled trial. Participants (n = 509) received personalized melanoma polygenic risk information, an educational booklet on melanoma prevention, and a GC phone call, which was audio-recorded. Participants completed the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Survey 1-month after receiving their risk information (n = 346). A subgroup took part in a qualitative interview post-study completion (n = 20). Survey data were analyzed descriptively using SPSS, and thematic analysis of the qualitative data was conducted using NVivo 12.0 software. The survey showed a high level of acceptability for the GC phone call (mean satisfaction score overall: 4.3 out of 5, standard deviation (SD): 0.6) with differences according to gender (mean score for women: 4.4, SD: 0.6 vs. men: 4.2, SD: 0.7; p = 0.005), health literacy (lower literacy: 4.1, SD: 0.8; average: 4.3, SD: 0.6; higher: 4.4, SD: 0.6: p = 0.02) and polygenic risk group (low risk: 4.5, SD: 0.5, SD: average: 4.3, SD: 0.7, high: 4.3, SD: 0.7; p = 0.03). During the GC phone calls, the discussion predominately related to the impact of past sun exposure on personal melanoma risk. Together our findings point to the importance of further exploring educational and support needs and preferences for communicating personalized melanoma risk among population subgroups, including diverse literacy levels.

Perceptions of motivational interviewing in genetic counseling practice and training

Motivational interviewing (MI) is a counseling approach that allows a provider to engage in a dialog with patients to evoke motivation for health behavior change or decision-making. MI is a relatively recent addition to the curricula of genetic counseling programs, and recent research has demonstrated its utility in genetic counseling practice. However, the perspectives of genetic counselors trained in MI have yet to be studied with the intent of illuminating how it is applied in practice or what should be emphasized in training. This qualitative study interviewed fifteen genetic counselors from various practice areas who have had training in MI. The interviews focused on how MI is being used in practice, and the strengths and weaknesses of their MI training. Five themes were identified through inductive qualitative analysis: (a) utility of MI in genetic counseling practice, (b) value of MI in genetic counseling training, (c) barriers to implementing MI in genetic counseling practice, (d) barriers to training genetic counselors in MI, and (e) timing of MI training. The perspectives discovered from this study can help inform genetic counseling educators who wish to include MI in their curriculum. In addition for those programs that already include MI, these results serve as a guide for the development of training role-plays and/or standardized patient encounter scenarios.

Uptake and acceptability of a mainstreaming model of hereditary cancer multigene panel testing among patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer

Purpose:

To address demands for timely germline information to guide treatments, we evaluated experiences of patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer with a mainstreaming genetic testing model wherein multigene panel testing was ordered by oncologists with standardized pre-test patient education, and genetic counselors delivered results and post-test genetic counseling via telephone.

Methods:

Among 1203 eligible patients, we conducted a prospective single-arm study to examine patient uptake and acceptability (via self-report surveys at baseline and three-weeks and three-months following result return) of this mainstreaming model.

Results:

Only 10% of eligible patients declined participation. Among 1054 tested participants, 10% had pathogenic variants (PV), 16% had variants of uncertain significance (VUS), and 74% had no variant identified (NV). Participants reported high initial acceptability, including high satisfaction with their testing decision. Variability over time in several outcomes existed for participants with PV or NV: Those with NV experienced a temporary increase in depression (p_Time<0.001; p_Time2<0.001), and those with PV experienced a small increase in genetic testing distress (p=0.03). Findings suggested that result type, sex, and cancer type were also associated with outcomes including clinical depression and uncertainty.

Conclusion:

This mainstreaming model may offer a feasible approach for extending access to germline genetic information.

Genetic Counseling for Men with Prostate Cancer

Germline genetic testing is becoming more prevalent in urology clinics because of precision medicine for prostate cancer treatment. Genetic testing results can also influence cancer screening discussions for patients and/or their families. An important part of germline genetic testing is genetic counseling. This article provides an overview of the historical aspects of genetic counseling, discusses the components needed to provide proper genetic counseling, summarizes genes related to hereditary prostate cancer risk, and reviews genetic privacy and genetic discrimination concerns related to germline genetic testing.

The Challenge of CRISPR-Cas Toward Bioethics

Since determining the structure of the DNA double helix, the study of genes and genomes has revolutionized contemporary science; with the decoding of the human genome, new findings have been achieved, including the ability that humans have developed to modify genetic sequences in vitro. The discovery of gene modification mechanisms, such as the CRISPR-Cas system (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) and Cas (CRISPR associated). Derived from the latest discoveries in genetics, the idea that science has no limits has exploded. However, improvements in genetic engineering allowed access to new possibilities to save lives or generate new treatment options for diseases that are not treatable by using genes and their modification in the genome. With this greater knowledge, the immediate question is who governs the limits of genetic science? The first answer would be the intervention of a legislative branch, with adequate scientific advice, from which the logical answer, bioethics, should result. This term was introduced for the first time by Van Rensselaer Potter, who in 1970 combined the Greek words bios and ethos, Bio-Ethik, which determined the study of the morality of human behavior in science. The approach to this term was introduced to avoid the natural tension that results from the scientific technical development and the ethics of limits. Therefore, associating the use of biotechnology through the CRISPR-Cas system and the regulation through bioethics, aims to monitor the use of techniques and technology, with benefits for humanity, without altering fundamental rights, acting with moral and ethical principles.

'We Should View Him as an Individual': The Role of the Child's Future Autonomy in Shared Decision-Making About Unsolicited Findings in Pediatric Exome Sequencing

In debates about genetic testing of children, as well as about disclosing unsolicited findings (UFs) of pediatric exome sequencing, respect for future autonomy should be regarded as a prima facie consideration for not taking steps that would entail denying the future adult the opportunity to decide for herself about what to know about her own genome. While the argument can be overridden when other, morally more weighty considerations are at stake, whether this is the case can only be determined in concrete cases. Importantly, when children grow into adolescents, respect for future autonomy will have to give way to respecting their emerging autonomy. When pediatric exome sequencing is done for complex conditions not involving developmental delay, respect for the child's future or emerging autonomy should be a primary consideration for those charged with deciding on behalf of the child. Building on what Emanuel and Emanuel have termed the 'deliberative model' of shared decision making, we argue that if parents fail to give these considerations their due, professionals should actively invite them to do so. Taking a directive stance may be needed in order to make sure that the future or emerging autonomy of the child are duly considered in the decision-making process, but also to help the parents and themselves to shape their respective roles as responsible care-givers.