Human genetics. Before it's too late--addressing fear of genetic information

Genetic Data Governance in Japanese Hospitals

The storage and access of genetic testing results have unique considerations for medical records. Initially, genetic testing was limited to patients with single gene diseases. Genetic medicine and testing have expanded, as have concerns about appropriately handling genetic information. In this study, we surveyed the management of genetic information in general hospitals in Japan using a questionnaire on access restrictions. Our questions included whether any other medical information was managed in a unique way. We identified 1037 hospitals designated for clinical training located throughout Japan and received responses from 258 hospitals, and 191 reported that they handle genetic information and results of genetic tests. Of the 191 hospitals that handle genetic information, 112 hospitals implement access restrictions to genetic information. Seventy-one hospitals, one of which uses paper medical records rather than electrical medical records, do not enforce access restrictions. For eight hospitals, it was not known whether access restrictions were enforced or not. The responses from these hospitals indicated that access restrictions and storage methods varied across institution type (e.g., general vs. university hospitals), institution size, and the presence of a clinical genetics department. Other information, such as infectious disease diagnosis, psychological counseling records, abuse, and criminal history, was also subject to access restriction in 42 hospitals. The disparity in how medical facilities handle sensitive genetic information demonstrates a need for discussion between medical professionals and the general public on the storage of sensitive records, including genetic information.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41649-023-00242-9.

Global trends on fears and concerns of genetic discrimination: a systematic literature review

Since the 1990s, developments in the field of genetics have led to many questions on the use and possible misuse of genetic information. 'Genetic discrimination' has been defined as the differential treatment of asymptomatic individuals or their relatives on the basis of their real or assumed genetic characteristics. Despite the public policy attention around genetic discrimination, there is currently still much confusion surrounding this phenomenon. On the one hand, there is little evidence of the occurrence of genetic discrimination. On the other hand, it appears that people remain concerned about this theme, and this fear influences their health and life choices. This article makes use of a systematic literature review to investigate what is already known about the nature, extent and background of these fears and concerns. The 42 included studies have found considerable levels of concerns about genetic discrimination. Concerns dominate in insurance contexts and within personal interactions. The extent of concerns appears to vary depending on the type of genetic illness. Furthermore, installed laws prohibiting genetic discrimination do not seem to alleviate existing fears. This raises important questions as to the origins of these fears. Based on the findings, recommendations for future research are made. First, research on the background of fears is needed. Second, future research needs to assess more fully all different forms (for example, direct and indirect) of genetic discrimination. Thirdly, it has to be studied whether genetic discrimination is a form of discrimination that is distinguishable from discrimination based on an illness or disability. Finally, a last element that should be addressed in future research is the most recent developments in research on genomics, such as next-generation sequencing or genome-wide association studies.

Genetics in public health: Rarely explored

The availability and the integration of genetic information into our understanding of normal and abnormal growth and development are driving important changes in health care. These changes have fostered the hope that the availability of genetic information will promote a better understanding of disease etiology and permit early, even pre-symptomatic diagnosis and preventive intervention to avoid disease onset. Hence, our aim was to review and provide the insight into the role of genetics in public health and its scope as well as barriers. The use of genetics along with their goals and essential public health functions are discussed. From the era of eugenics to the present era, this area has seen many turns in which geneticists have put through their effort to tie together the strings of both molecular genetics and public health. Though still the dark clouds of eugenics, the predictive power of genes, genetic reductionism, non-modifiable risk factors, individuals or populations, resource allocation, commercial imperative, discrimination and understanding and education are hanging above. The technological and scientific advances that have fundamentally changed our perception of human diseases fuel the expectations for this proactive health.

Views of discrimination among individuals confronting genetic disease

Though the US passed the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, many questions remain of how individuals confronting genetic disease view and experience possible discrimination. We interviewed, for 2 hours each, 64 individuals who had, or were at risk for, Huntington's Disease, breast cancer, or Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. Discrimination can be implicit, indirect and subtle, rather than explicit, direct and overt; and be hard to prove. Patients may be treated "differently" and unfairly, raising questions of how to define "discrimination", and "appropriate accommodation". Patients were often unclear and wary about legislation. Fears and experiences of discrimination can shape testing, treatment, and disclosure. Discrimination can be subjective, and take various forms. Searches for only objective evidence of it may be inherently difficult. Providers need to be aware of, and prepared to address, subtle and indirect discrimination; ambiguities, confusion and potential limitations concerning current legislation; and needs for education about these laws. Policies are needed to prevent discrimination in life, long-term care, and disability insurance, not covered by GINA.

Parenting children with Proteus syndrome: experiences with, and adaptation to, courtesy stigma

Courtesy stigma refers to the stigmatization an unaffected person experiences due to his or her relationship with a person who bears a stigma. Parents of children with genetic conditions are particularly vulnerable to courtesy stigma, but little research has been done to explore this phenomenon. The purpose of this study was to investigate the courtesy stigma experiences of parents of children with Proteus syndrome (PS) and related overgrowth conditions. Thematic analysis of transcripts from 31 parents identified three distinct themes: stigma experiences, social-emotional reactions to stigmatizing encounters, and coping responses. Four types of stigmatizing experiences were identified: intrusive inquires, staring and pointing, devaluing remarks, and social withdrawal. Additionally, we uncovered eight strategies parents used to cope with courtesy stigma: attributing cause, assigning meaning to social exchanges, concealing, withdrawing socially, taking the offensive, employing indifference, instructing and learning from family, and educating others. Parents' choices of strategy type were found to be context dependent and evolved over time. This is the first study to document the adaptive evolution of coping strategies to offset courtesy stigma by parents of children with genetic conditions. These results provide groundwork for genetic counseling interventions aimed at addressing issues of courtesy stigma and further investigation of the phenomenon itself.

Integrating molecular medicine into the US health-care system: opportunities, barriers, and policy challenges

Scientific support about the concept of using molecular data for risk stratification and tailoring health-care interventions to the individual--a strategy broadly defined as molecular medicine (MM)--is accumulating. Molecular-based health-care technologies are beginning to enter clinical practice, but their use has revealed many scientific, economic, and organizational barriers to the effective delivery of targeted health care. We conducted a qualitative interview study to describe the MM landscape, with an emphasis on eliciting policy recommendations for the field from a broad range of stakeholders in MM and health care. Molecular medicine has widespread support but will require changes in how molecular-based technologies are evaluated, how health care is financed and delivered, and how clinicians and consumers are trained and prepared for its use. In particular, researchers and developers need to become active participants in a variety of clinical integration strategies to realize the promise of MM.

Pediatric ethics in the age of molecular medicine

Many scientific advances in molecular medicine, such as those made in genomics, stem cell transplantation, and neurobiology, raise important ethical issues that are relevant to pediatrics. Although some of these novel issues appear to be nearly without precedent, others are illuminated by reflection on prior challenges. How do we approach such complex ethical questions in the context of pluralism? This article examines several important areas in molecular medicine exemplifying fundamental ethical questions that are broadly applicable.

Ethical, social and legal implications of genetic testing in liver disease

Advances in molecular genetics challenge the hepatology community to understand and implement genetic knowledge. Despite excitement about the potential benefits of new genetic information, concerns have been raised about the inappropriate use of genetic testing, clinicians' incorrect ordering and misinterpretation of test results, and discrimination in employment and insurability based on tests results. Among the public there is fear and mistrust, in part based on horrifying historical events that were gross violations of medical ethical standards. Clinicians, scientists, patient advocacy groups, and government agencies worldwide are debating the optimal legal protections to prevent abuse. In addition, these groups are developing clinical guidelines for optimal use. Traditional ethical and legal standards of confidentiality between physicians and their patients are under scrutiny. A new principle, "the duty to warn," is emerging that has applications specific to genetic testing and may conflict with the duty to maintain patient confidentiality. Emerging ethical, legal, and social issues involve the appropriate use and protection of confidential data in tissue and serum banks. Education of the profession and the public at many levels will increase the likelihood that the unraveling of the human genome will maximally benefit society. If fear of genetic testing can be alleviated, selection bias in research could be reduced. Professional and lay organizations concerned with liver disease should consider a more active role in the public and professional debate, and foster education at all levels.

Care of the Self and Patient Participation in Genetic Discourse: A Foucauldian Reading of the Surgeon General's “My Family Health Portrait” Program

Critics of genetic discourse are concerned that deterministic and discriminatory views of genetics are increasingly becoming adopted. These views argue that current genetic discourse becomes a source of power whereby powerful institutions harm people with so-called "bad" genes. This essay argues that current analyses of the power of genetics discourse are grounded in an improper reading that disempowers patients. Deploying Michel Foucault's concept "care of the self," this essay claims that genetics discourse is better understood as a way that patients take on power through rhetoric rather than a force that has power over patients. Through a close reading of the "My Family Health Portrait" program, this paper argues that patients experience a process of "subjection" wherein they become agents of and objects of genetics discourse both. This alternative mode of analyzing the power of genetics discourse has implications for our collective understanding of the operations of the care of the self and the uses of genetic information that we propose.

Concerns in a primary care population about genetic discrimination by insurers

PURPOSE

Fear of genetic discrimination might deter participation in research or therapy. This is a major impetus for laws limiting insurers' use of genetic information, yet there is little information about the extent of this fear in the general population and how it varies by social factors.

METHODS

This study measures concern about insurance problems relating to genetic testing, as part of primary-care screening for hereditary hemochromatosis (iron overload). Data come from a multiethnic, primary care-based survey of 86,859 adults in five field centers in the United States (AL, CA, DC, HI, OR), and one in Canada (Ontario). Logistic regression was used to model the probability of agreeing to the question "Genetic testing is not a good idea because you might have trouble getting or keeping your insurance."

RESULTS

Overall, 40.0% of participants agreed. Adjusting for other characteristics, African Americans and Asians were much less likely (OR = 0.52 and 0.39), and Hispanics were more likely (OR = 1.124), than Caucasians to express concern about insurance discrimination. Participants under 65 years old, US residents, and those without a high school diploma were substantially more likely to be concerned (ORs ranging from 1.4-1.6), as were participants with lower mental health scores. Education showed a nonlinear relationship, with significantly higher concern among both those with less than a high school education and those with a college degree, compared to high school graduates.

CONCLUSIONS

Concern about genetic discrimination varies substantially by race and other demographic factors and by nationality. One possible explanation for lower concern about Canadians and by people over 64 is that both groups are covered by social insurance for health care (Medicare). However, US residents in states with some legal protections against genetic discrimination had more, not less, concern than either Canadians or US residents in states with no legal protections.

Gender Differences in Attitudes Among Those at Risk for Huntington's Disease

This report presents and discusses selected findings regarding gender differences from an Australian-based study that investigated attitudes of individuals at risk for Huntington's disease (HD) towards genetic risk and predictive testing. Clear gender differences emerged regarding perceived coping capacity with regard to predictive testing, as well as disclosure of the genetic risk for HD to others. Female participants were more likely to disclose their genetic risk to others, including their medical practitioners, while male participants were three times more fearful of disclosing their genetic risk to others. These findings are of interest in light of gender differences that have consistently been reported regarding the uptake of predictive testing for HD, other genetic conditions, and health services more generally. While gender differences cannot provide a fully explanatory framework for differential uptake of predictive genetic testing, men and women may experience and respond differently to the genetic risk for HD and possibly other inherited disorders. The meanings of genetic risk to men and women warrants further exploration, given anticipated increases in genetic testing for more common conditions, especially if post-test interventions are possible. These issues are also relevant within the context of individuals' concerns about the potential for discrimination on the basis of genetic risk or genetic test information.

Genetics and public health--evolution, or revolution?

During the 19th and early 20th century, public health and genetics shared common ground through similar approaches to health promotion in the population. By the mid-20th century there was a division between public health and genetics, with eugenicists estranged and clinical genetics focused on single gene disorders, usually only relevant to small numbers of people. Now through a common interest in the aetiology of complex diseases such as heart disease and cancer, there is a need for people working in public health and genetics to collaborate. This is not a comfortable convergence for many, particularly those in public health. Nine main concerns are reviewed: fear of eugenics; genetic reductionism; predictive power of genes; non-modifiable risk factors; rights of individuals compared with populations; resource allocation; commercial imperative; discrimination; and understanding and education. This paper aims to contribute to the thinking and discussion about an evolutionary, multidisciplinary approach to understanding, preventing, and treating complex diseases.

Imaging or imagining? A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics

From a twenty-first century partnership between bioethics and neuroscience, the modern field of neuroethics is emerging, and technologies enabling functional neuroimaging with unprecedented sensitivity have brought new ethical, social and legal issues to the forefront. Some issues, akin to those surrounding modern genetics, raise critical questions regarding prediction of disease, privacy and identity. However, with new and still-evolving insights into our neurobiology and previously unquantifiable features of profoundly personal behaviors such as social attitude, value and moral agency, the difficulty of carefully and properly interpreting the relationship between brain findings and our own self-concept is unprecedented. Therefore, while the ethics of genetics provides a legitimate starting point--even a backbone--for tackling ethical issues in neuroimaging, they do not suffice. Drawing on recent neuroimaging findings and their plausible real-world applications, we argue that interpretation of neuroimaging data is a key epistemological and ethical challenge. This challenge is two-fold. First, at the scientific level, the sheer complexity of neuroscience research poses challenges for integration of knowledge and meaningful interpretation of data. Second, at the social and cultural level, we find that interpretations of imaging studies are bound by cultural and anthropological frameworks. In particular, the introduction of concepts of self and personhood in neuroimaging illustrates the interaction of interpretation levels and is a major reason why ethical reflection on genetics will only partially help settle neuroethical issues. Indeed, ethical interpretation of such findings will necessitate not only traditional bioethical input but also a wider perspective on the construction of scientific knowledge.

Exploring the concept of genetic discrimination

The issue of genetic discrimination has attracted growing attention and has been the focus of a recent major Australian inquiry. It is, however, a complex and loaded notion, open to interpretation. This paper explores the concept of genetic discrimination in both its theoretical and practical dimensions. It examines its conceptual underpinnings, how it is understood, and how this understanding fits within the legal framework of disability discrimination. The paper also examines the phenomenon in practice, including the 'fear factor' and the resulting implications for the development of regulatory policy. The paper argues that we need to be discerning in our interpretation of this term, and differentiate between discriminatory conduct which is legal and illegal. Further, it is argued that a concerted societal response to the 'problem' of genetic discrimination is needed involving targeted legal reforms as well as broader non-legal strategies.

Perceptions of genetic discrimination among at-risk relatives of colorectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

To explore the concerns of at-risk relatives of colorectal cancer patients about genetic discrimination and their awareness of current legislative protections.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to unaffected individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer who had enrolled in the Johns Hopkins Hereditary Colorectal Cancer Registry (N = 777).

RESULTS

Of the 470 respondents, approximately half rated their level of concern about genetic discrimination as high. The majority of respondents, 79%, learned about genetic discrimination from at least one media source (television, newspapers, magazines, and radio). If they were to pursue genetic testing, respondents with a higher level of concern about genetic discrimination would be significantly more likely to pay out of pocket, use an alias, or ask for test results to be excluded from their medical record. Awareness and understanding of legislation regarding genetic discrimination was found to be minimal.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this study demonstrate the negative effect of concerns about genetic discrimination on decisions about utilization of genetic services. Stronger legislative protections against genetic discrimination and increased public education through the scientific community and media sources are needed.

Clinical validity and clinical utility of genetic tests

In considering the appropriate use of new genetic tests, clinicians and health care policymakers must consider the accuracy with which a test identifies a patient's clinical status (clinical validity) and the risks and benefits resulting from test use (clinical utility). Genetic tests in current use vary in accuracy and potential to improve health outcomes, and these test properties may be influenced by the clinical setting in which the test is used. In addition, the relative importance of clinical validity and utility varies according to the proposed use of the test. This unit defines clinical validity and clinical utility, provides examples, and considers the implications of these test properties for clinical practice.

Investigating genetic discrimination in Australia: opportunities and challenges in the early stages

Genetic discrimination, defined as the differential treatment of individuals or their relatives on the basis of actual or presumed genetic differences, is an emerging issue of interest in academic, clinical, social and legal contexts. While its potential significance has been discussed widely, verified empirical data are scarce. Genetic discrimination is a complex phenomenon to describe and investigate, as evidenced by the recent Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry in Australia. The authors research project, which commenced in 2002, aims to document the multiple perspectives and experiences regarding genetic discrimination in Australia and inform future policy development and law reform. Data are being collected from consumers, employers, insurers and the legal system. Attempted verification of alleged accounts of genetic discrimination will be a novel feature of the research. This paper overviews the early stages of the research, including conceptual challenges and their methodological implications.

An investigation of genetic counselors' discussion of genetic discrimination with cancer risk patients

Twenty-five genetic counselors who see familial cancer risk patients were interviewed about their definitions of genetic discrimination, perceptions of patient risk for discrimination, frequency and type of discrimination experienced by their patients, sources of information about discrimination, and what they tell patients about genetic discrimination. There was variability in participant definitions and content of discussions of genetic discrimination. Although 82% regarded risk to be low to theoretical, 40% reported possible instances of genetic discrimination, including insurance companies requiring results to cover procedures, denial of life/health insurance, social discrimination, and employment discrimination. Ninety-six percent of the sample reported always or almost always discussing genetic discrimination, and one or more of the following: insurance discrimination risks, protective legislation, no known cases positively documenting discrimination, strategies to avoid discrimination, and uncertainty of protective measures. The majority use current literature and research as information sources. Practice, policy, and research implications are discussed.

Methodological Considerations in the Study of Genetic Discrimination

The potential significance and dimensions of genetic discrimination have been described extensively in published literature, but epidemiological and verified case data are limited. Obtaining unbiased data from individuals about discrimination which has been based on erroneous or unjustifiable assumptions about their genetic predispositions poses unique challenges. Through review and discussion of research literature, we identify methodological considerations for collecting valid epidemiological data on genetic discrimination from individuals in the community; in particular, we consider issues which relate to sampling, selection and response. We identify issues to promote sound study design, with particular attention to verification of genetic discrimination, and highlight the importance of clinical and genetic knowledge of complex genotype-phenotype relationships.

Attitudes of the broader hearing, deaf, and hard-of-hearing community toward genetic testing for deafness

PURPOSE

To assess attitudes in a nonmedically and nonculturally influenced setting of reproductive-age adults toward genetic testing for deafness in newborns.

METHODS

Hearing, deaf, and hard-of-hearing individuals at a university completed questionnaires assessing attitudes toward genetic testing.

RESULTS

Eighty-five percent of hearing (n = 133) and 62% of deaf/hard-of-hearing (n = 89) individuals would allow genetic testing for deafness in their own newborn.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate an acceptance of newborn genetic testing for deafness by individuals in the broader community, regardless of hearing status.

Policy Before Practice

The value of genetics in medicine has been steadily developing with our increasing knowledge of the human genome. Genetic testing to determine disease risk or potential drug effects is set to become more commonplace. With this comes increasing concern about access to genetic information, and the potential for discriminatory usage of such information. At present, the scope and predictability of genetic testing and the conclusions that may be drawn fairly from genetic information are limited. Nonetheless, public concerns about discrimination based on the possession of a genetic trait or condition are well documented. The prospect that such information might be used in decisions regarding employment or insurability has caused anxiety and prompted legislation largely dedicated to the use of information about one's genotype rather than medical information in general. These laws emphasize genetic information as distinct from other medical information and attempt to prioritize interests in genetic information. As the distinction between genetic and medical information becomes untenable, those who would regulate the use of genotypic information will find this approach to policy problematic.In considering the limits of legislation as an effective tool of regulating genetic discrimination, several conclusions can be drawn: firstly, despite the promise of genomic medicine, current knowledge is insufficient to justify the use or application of certain genetic information in nonmedical contexts; secondly, public resistance to genomic medicine that is based on fear of genetic discrimination poses a danger that justifies a policy response; and thirdly, such a response may be purely symbolic and not entirely effective, provided that the policy establishes a consensus regarding the applicability of genetic information in nonmedical contexts.