Genetic discrimination: perspectives of consumers

Community concerns about genetic discrimination in life insurance persist in Australia: A survey of consumers offered genetic testing

Fears of genetic discrimination in life insurance continue to deter some Australians from genetic testing. In July 2019, the life insurance industry introduced a partial, self-regulated moratorium restricting the use of genetic results in underwriting, applicable to policies up to certain limits (eg AUD$500,000 for death cover).We administered an online survey to consumers who had taken, or been offered, clinical genetic testing for adult-onset conditions, to gather views and experiences about the moratorium and the use of genetic results in life insurance, including its regulation.Most respondents (n = 367) had undertaken a genetic test (89%), and had a positive test result (76%; n = 243/321). Almost 30% (n = 94/326) reported testing after 1 July 2019. Relatively few respondents reported knowing about the moratorium (16%; n = 54/340) or that use of genetic results in life insurance underwriting is legal (17%; n = 60/348). Only 4% (n = 14/350) consider this practice should be allowed. Some respondents reported ongoing difficulties accessing life insurance products, even after the moratorium. Further, discrimination concerns continue to affect some consumers' decision-making about having clinical testing and applying for life insurance products, despite the Moratorium being in place. Most respondents (88%; n = 298/340) support the introduction of legislation by the Australian government to regulate this issue.Despite the introduction of a partial moratorium in Australia, fears of genetic discrimination persist, and continue to deter people from genetic testing. Consumers overwhelmingly consider life insurers should not be allowed to use genetic results in underwriting, and that federal legislation is required to regulate this area.

The Field-Dependent Nature of PageRank Values in Citation Networks

The value of scientific research can be easier to assess at the collective level than at the level of individual contributions. Several journal-level and article-level metrics aim to measure the importance of journals or individual manuscripts. However, many are citation-based and citation practices vary between fields. To account for these differences, scientists have devised normalization schemes to make metrics more comparable across fields. We use PageRank as an example metric and examine the extent to which field-specific citation norms drive estimated importance differences. In doing so, we recapitulate differences in journal and article PageRanks between fields. We also find that manuscripts shared between fields have different PageRanks depending on which field's citation network the metric is calculated in. We implement a degree-preserving graph shuffling algorithm to generate a null distribution of similar networks and find differences more likely attributed to field-specific preferences than citation norms. Our results suggest that while differences exist between fields' metric distributions, applying metrics in a field-aware manner rather than using normalized global metrics avoids losing important information about article preferences. They also imply that assigning a single importance value to a manuscript may not be a useful construct, as the importance of each manuscript varies by the reader's field.

Genetic Discrimination in Access to Life Insurance: Does Ukrainian Legislation Offer Sufficient Protection against the Adverse Consequences of the Genetic Revolution to Insurance Applicants?

This paper presents an inter-disciplinary study of the risk for, and protections against, genetic discrimination in access to life insurance in Ukraine. It aims (i) to review questions related to genetic information, health status, and family history currently included in Ukrainian life insurance application forms; (ii) to analyze the Ukrainian legislation related to equity and nondiscrimination and to determine whether it provides adequate protection against genetic discrimination (GD). Research findings of our insurance application forms review show that Ukrainian life insurance companies ask broad questions about health and family history that may be perceived by applicants as requiring the disclosure of their genetic information. Our legal analysis shows that today there are no genetic specific law protecting Ukrainians people against GD in insurance. However, Ukrainian human rights legislation provides some protection against multiple grounds of discrimination and given the ratification by Ukraine of the European Convention on Human Rights it is possible that these grounds could be interpreted by tribunals as also including genetic characteristics. As a next step, Ukrainian researchers should develop a survey to obtain much needed data on the incidence and impact of GD in Ukraine. Following this it will be possible for policymakers to better assess whether there is a need for an explicit non-GD law in this country. Such a law would have the benefit of explicitly aligning Ukraine’s legal framework with that of many of its European partners.

Preconception risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease

BACKGROUND

Globally, about 6% of children are born with a serious birth defect of genetic or partially genetic origin. Carrier screening or testing is one way to identify couples at increased risk of having a child with an autosomal recessive condition. The most common autosomal recessive conditions are thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease, with higher carrier rates in high-risk populations of specific ancestral backgrounds. Identifying and counselling couples at genetic risk of the conditions before pregnancy enables them to make fully informed reproductive decisions, with some of these choices not being available if testing is only offered in an antenatal setting. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of systematic preconception genetic risk assessment to enable autonomous reproductive choice and to improve reproductive outcomes  in women and their partners who are both identified as carriers of thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease in healthcare settings when compared to usual care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Registers. Date of latest search of the registers: 04 August 2021. In addition, we searched for all relevant trials from 1970 (or the date at which the database was first available if after 1970) to date using electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO), clinical trial databases (National Institutes of Health, Clinical Trials Search portal of the World Health Organization, metaRegister of controlled clinical trials), and hand searching of key journals and conference abstract books from 1998 to date (European Journal of Human Genetics, Genetics in Medicine, Journal of Community Genetics). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, reviews and guidelines and also contacted subject experts in the field to request any unpublished or other published trials. Date of latest search of all these sources: 25 June 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs (published or unpublished) comparing reproductive outcomes of systematic preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease when compared to usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified 37 papers, describing 22 unique trials which were potentially eligible for inclusion in the review. However, after assessment, we found no RCTs of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease.

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease are included. A trial identified earlier has published its results and has subsequently been listed as excluded in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As there are no RCTs of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, or Tay-Sachs disease included in either the earlier or current versions of this review, we recommend considering potential non-RCTs studies (for example prospective cohorts or before-and-after studies) for future reviews. While RCTs are desirable to inform evidence-based practice and robust recommendations, the ethical, legal and social implications associated with using this trial design to evaluate the implementation of preconception genetic risk assessment involving carrier testing and reproductive autonomy must also be considered.  In addition, rather than focusing on single gene-by-gene carrier testing for specific autosomal-recessive conditions as the intervention being evaluated, preconception expanded genetic screening should also be included in future searches as this has received much attention in recent years as a more pragmatic strategy. The research evidence for current international policy recommendations is limited to non-randomised studies.

Study protocol: the Australian genetics and life insurance moratorium-monitoring the effectiveness and response (A-GLIMMER) project

Background

The use of genetic test results in risk-rated insurance is a significant concern internationally, with many countries banning or restricting the use of genetic test results in underwriting. In Australia, life insurers’ use of genetic test results is legal and self-regulated by the insurance industry (Financial Services Council (FSC)). In 2018, an Australian Parliamentary Inquiry recommended that insurers’ use of genetic test results in underwriting should be prohibited. In 2019, the FSC introduced an industry self-regulated moratorium on the use of genetic test results. In the absence of government oversight, it is critical that the impact, effectiveness and appropriateness of the moratorium is monitored. Here we describe the protocol of our government-funded research project, which will serve that critical function between 2020 and 2023.

Methods

A realist evaluation framework was developed for the project, using a context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) approach, to systematically assess the impact of the moratorium for a range of stakeholders. Outcomes which need to be achieved for the moratorium to accomplish its intended aims were identified, and specific data collection measures methods were developed to gather the evidence from relevant stakeholder groups (consumers, health professionals, financial industry and genetic research community) to determine if aims are achieved. Results from each arm of the study will be analysed and published in peer-reviewed journals as they become available.

Discussion

The A-GLIMMER project will provide essential monitoring of the impact and effectiveness of the self-regulated insurance moratorium. On completion of the study (3 years) a Stakeholder Report will be compiled. The Stakeholder Report will synthesise the evidence gathered in each arm of the study and use the CMO framework to evaluate the extent to which each of the outcomes have been achieved, and make evidence-based recommendations to the Australian federal government, life insurance industry and other stakeholders.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00634-2.

Genetic testing and genetic discrimination: Public policy when insurance becomes "too expensive"

We examine public policy toward the use of genetic tests by insurers when a positive test makes actuarially fair insurance too expensive for some consumers. With state-dependent utility, consumers may decline actuarially fair insurance if the probability of becoming ill exceeds a threshold. In markets with adverse selection, a positive genetic test may cause all or some high risks to drop out of the market (complete and partial genetic discrimination, respectively). Full participation in the market by all consumers requires cross-subsidization. We show that the consent law and mandatory testing are equivalent. Under complete genetic discrimination, the duty to disclose is never Pareto dominated, but either the code of conduct or consent law can yield the same outcome. Under partial genetic discrimination, the duty to disclose is never Pareto dominated. However, partial genetic discrimination and cross-subsidization imply the information ban is noncomparable to the other policy alternatives.

Genetic discrimination views in online discussion forums: Perspectives from Canadian forumites

Recent advancements in genetic technologies have made genetic information increasingly sought out in a wide range of non-therapeutic contexts, which has increased the risk that such information be used to discriminate against individuals. Frequently, it is genetic counselors who have to respond to questions about genetic discrimination (GD) from worried patients. Here, we examine the general Canadian public's knowledge, attitudes, and concerns about GD through a comprehensive analysis and categorization of posts from selected Canadian online discussion forums. Overall, we collected 1,638 posts, from which we coded 694 posts originating from newspaper comment sections and Reddit posts that were categorized to yield 6 main themes that consistently concerned Canadian users on the topics of GD: (a) discussions centered around how insurance business practices can be affected by genetic information; (b) issues in employment; (c) 'fear' of genetic testing and eugenics; (d) preventive approaches such as law and human rights instruments; (e) the predictive value and privacy that should be conferred to genetic information; and (f) other ethical issues. Overall, discussions addressed risk stratification models applied to genetic information and personal insurance underwriting. We find that many forum users (aka forumites) fear GD in insurance and employment, consider genetic information private, and strongly support different legal approaches to prevent GD. However, we find dissension among forumites that may represent different advocacy groups such as insurers and employers. From these important concerns and social conceptions, we discuss issues that should be taken into consideration for the development of future policies and information campaigns addressing GD in Canada and other countries.

The effect of kinship in re-identification attacks against genomic data sharing beacons

MOTIVATION

Big data era in genomics promises a breakthrough in medicine, but sharing data in a private manner limit the pace of field. Widely accepted 'genomic data sharing beacon' protocol provides a standardized and secure interface for querying the genomic datasets. The data are only shared if the desired information (e.g. a certain variant) exists in the dataset. Various studies showed that beacons are vulnerable to re-identification (or membership inference) attacks. As beacons are generally associated with sensitive phenotype information, re-identification creates a significant risk for the participants. Unfortunately, proposed countermeasures against such attacks have failed to be effective, as they do not consider the utility of beacon protocol.

RESULTS

In this study, for the first time, we analyze the mitigation effect of the kinship relationships among beacon participants against re-identification attacks. We argue that having multiple family members in a beacon can garble the information for attacks since a substantial number of variants are shared among kin-related people. Using family genomes from HapMap and synthetically generated datasets, we show that having one of the parents of a victim in the beacon causes (i) significant decrease in the power of attacks and (ii) substantial increase in the number of queries needed to confirm an individual's beacon membership. We also show how the protection effect attenuates when more distant relatives, such as grandparents are included alongside the victim. Furthermore, we quantify the utility loss due adding relatives and show that it is smaller compared with flipping based techniques.

Citizens under the umbrella: citizenship projects and the development of genetic umbrella organizations in the USA and the UK

Social scientists have observed previously that patient support groups began to have significant influence over both research and clinical services of medical genetics in the early 2000s. This observation led to the idea of genetic citizenship, suggesting that the active participation and intervention of patient support groups in the rapidly growing field of medicine marked the emergence of a new form of citizenship. To understand how this citizenship emerged, this paper examines the development of umbrella organizations of genetic support groups in the USA and the UK. The historical analysis demonstrates that the ways in which these organizations developed differ considerably, and that their visions and activities reflected the different structural and cultural organizations of medical genetics in their respective countries. By recognizing the early work of these organizations as citizenship projects, this article argues that they helped rather different forms of genetic citizenship to emerge in the two countries.

Preconception risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease

BACKGROUND

Globally, about five per cent of children are born with congenital or genetic disorders. The most common autosomal recessive conditions are thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease, with higher carrier rates in specific patient populations. Identifying and counselling couples at genetic risk of the conditions before pregnancy enables them to make fully informed reproductive decisions, with some of these choices not being available if genetic counselling is only offered in an antenatal setting. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of systematic preconception genetic risk assessment to improve reproductive outcomes in women and their partners who are identified as carriers of thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease in healthcare settings when compared to usual care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Registers. In addition, we searched for all relevant trials from 1970 (or the date at which the database was first available if after 1970) to date using electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO), clinical trial databases (National Institutes of Health, Clinical Trials Search portal of the World Health Organization, metaRegister of controlled clinical trials), and hand searching of key journals and conference abstract books from 1998 to date (European Journal of Human Genetics, Genetics in Medicine, Journal of Community Genetics). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, reviews and guidelines and also contacted subject experts in the field to request any unpublished or other published trials.Date of latest search of the registers: 20 June 2017.Date of latest search of all other sources: 16 November 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (published or unpublished) comparing reproductive outcomes of systematic preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease when compared to usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified 25 papers, describing 16 unique trials which were potentially eligible for inclusion in the review. However, after assessment, no randomised controlled trials of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease were found.

MAIN RESULTS

No randomised controlled trials of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease were included. One ongoing trial has been identified which may potentially eligible for inclusion once completed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As no randomised controlled trials of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, or Tay-Sachs disease were found for inclusion in this review, the research evidence for current policy recommendations is limited to non-randomised studies.Information from well-designed, adequately powered, randomised trials is desirable in order to make more robust recommendations for practice. However, such trials must also consider the legal, ethical, and cultural barriers to implementation of preconception genetic risk assessment.

Ethical issues in the evaluation of adults with suspected genetic neuromuscular disorders

Genetic testing is rapidly becoming an increasingly significant part of the diagnostic armamentarium of neuromuscular clinicians. Although technically easy to order, the results of such testing, whether positive or negative, have potentially enormous consequences for the individual tested and for family members. As a result, ethical considerations must be in the forefront of the physician's agenda when obtaining genetic testing. Informed consent is an important starting point for discussions between physicians and patients, but the counseling embedded in the informed consent process must be an ongoing part of subsequent interactions, including return of results and follow-up. Patient autonomy, including the right to know and right not-to-know results, must be respected. Considerations of capacity, physician beneficence and nonmaleficence, and privacy all play roles in the process. Muscle Nerve 54: 997-1006, 2016.

'You should at least ask'. The expectations, hopes and fears of rare disease patients on large-scale data and biomaterial sharing for genomics research

Within the myriad articles about participants' opinions of genomics research, the views of a distinct group - people with a rare disease (RD) - are unknown. It is important to understand if their opinions differ from the general public by dint of having a rare disease and vulnerabilities inherent in this. Here we document RD patients' attitudes to participation in genomics research, particularly around large-scale, international data and biosample sharing. This work is unique in exploring the views of people with a range of rare disorders from many different countries. The authors work within an international, multidisciplinary consortium, RD-Connect, which has developed an integrated platform connecting databases, registries, biobanks and clinical bioinformatics for RD research. Focus groups were conducted with 52 RD patients from 16 countries. Using a scenario-based approach, participants were encouraged to raise topics relevant to their own experiences, rather than these being determined by the researcher. Issues include wide data sharing, and consent for new uses of historic samples and for children. Focus group members are positively disposed towards research and towards allowing data and biosamples to be shared internationally. Expressions of trust and attitudes to risk are often affected by the nature of the RD which they have experience of, as well as regulatory and cultural practices in their home country. Participants are concerned about data security and misuse. There is an acute recognition of the vulnerability inherent in having a RD and the possibility that open knowledge of this could lead to discrimination.

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.

Ethical Issues Raised by Epigenetic Testing for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Cannabis

Epigenetic testing is one of the most significant new technologies to provide insight into the behavioral and environmental factors that influence the development and reconfiguration of the human genetic code. This technology allows us to identify structural changes in the genome that occur due to exposure to a wide variety of substances including alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis. The information gained can be used to promote health but it also raises a variety of ethical, legal, and social issues. As society progresses in understanding the epigenetic mechanisms of substance use and addiction, there is an opportunity to use these use this knowledge to enable medical, behavioral, and environmental interventions to alleviate the burden of addiction. This article describes the ethical issues associated with use of epigenetic testing for alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis and the implications of this technology. A further review of the scientific basis for the relevance of epigenetics is found in the accompanying article by Philibert and Erwin in this issue.

Preconception risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease

BACKGROUND

Globally, about five per cent of children are born with congenital or genetic disorders. The most common autosomal recessive conditions are thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease, with higher carrier rates in specific patient populations. Identifying and counselling couples at genetic risk of the conditions before pregnancy enables them to make fully informed reproductive decisions, with some of these choices not being available if genetic counselling is only offered in an antenatal setting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of systematic preconception genetic risk assessment to improve reproductive outcomes in women and their partners who are identified as carriers of thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease in healthcare settings when compared to usual care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Registers. In addition, we searched for all relevant trials from 1970 (or the date at which the database was first available if after 1970) to date using electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO), clinical trial databases (National Institutes of Health, Clinical Trials Search portal of the World Health Organization, metaRegister of controlled clinical trials), and hand searching of key journals and conference abstract books from 1998 to date (European Journal of Human Genetics, Genetics in Medicine, Journal of Community Genetics). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, reviews and guidelines and also contacted subject experts in the field to request any unpublished or other published trials.Date of latest search of the registers: 25 June 2015.Date of latest search of all other sources: 10 December 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any randomised or quasi-randomised control trials (published or unpublished) comparing reproductive outcomes of systematic preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease when compared to usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified 19 papers, describing 13 unique trials which were potentially eligible for inclusion in the review. However, after assessment, no randomised controlled trials of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease were found.

MAIN RESULTS

No randomised controlled trials of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease were found.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As no randomised controlled trials of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, or Tay-Sachs disease were found for inclusion in this review, the research evidence for current policy recommendations is limited to non-randomised studies.Information from well-designed, adequately powered, randomised trials is desirable in order to make more robust recommendations for practice. However, such trials must also consider the legal, ethical, and cultural barriers to implementation of preconception genetic risk assessment.

A Multi-Investigator/Institutional DNA Bank for AIDS-Related Human Genetic Studies: AACTG Protocol A5128

BACKGROUND

An understanding of the relationships among allelic variability and clinical outcomes will be critical if HIV-infected patients are to benefit from the explosion in knowledge in human genomics. Human DNA banks must allow future analyses while addressing confidentiality, ethical, and regulatory issues.

METHOD

A multidisciplinary group of clinical investigators, ethicists, data managers, regulatory specialists, and community representatives developed Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group (AACTG) Protocol A5128. Participants in past or present AACTG clinical trials may contribute DNA. Extraction from whole blood is performed at a central laboratory, where participants' unique identifiers are replaced by randomly assigned identifiers prior to DNA storage. To identify genotype-phenotype relationships, genetic assay results can be temporarily linked to clinical trials data.

RESULTS

Institutional review boards in 21 states and Puerto Rico have approved Protocol A5128, and accrual is ongoing. Of the first 4,247 enrollees, 82% are male, 56% are white, 26% are African American, and 15% are Hispanic. Because participants may participate in multiple AACTG protocols, these represent 11,424 cases in 324 different AACTG studies and substudies, with at least 100 participants from 24 different studies. Studies exploring specific genotype-phenotype relationships are underway.

CONCLUSION

The AACTG DNA bank will be an important resource for genomic discovery relevant to HIV therapy.

Genetic information, non-discrimination, and privacy protections in genetic counseling practice

The passage of the Genetic Information Non Discrimination Act (GINA) was hailed as a pivotal achievement that was expected to calm the fears of both patients and research participants about the potential misuse of genetic information. However, 6 years later, patient and provider awareness of legal protections at both the federal and state level remains discouragingly low, thereby, limiting their potential effectiveness. The increasing demand for genetic testing will expand the number of individuals and families who could benefit from obtaining accurate information about the privacy and anti-discriminatory protections that GINA and other laws extend. In this paper we describe legal protections that are applicable to individuals seeking genetic counseling, review the literature on patient and provider fears of genetic discrimination and examine their awareness and understandings of existing laws, and summarize how genetic counselors currently discuss genetic discrimination. We then present three genetic counseling cases to illustrate issues of genetic discrimination and provide relevant information on applicable legal protections. Genetic counselors have an unprecedented opportunity, as well as the professional responsibility, to disseminate accurate knowledge about existing legal protections to their patients. They can strengthen their effectiveness in this role by achieving a greater knowledge of current protections including being able to identify specific steps that can help protect genetic information.

Pharmacogenetics in clinical practice: considerations for testing

Pharmacogenetics is a rapidly evolving field that will undoubtedly lead to the development of pharmacogenetic tests. Such tests will need to be assimilated into healthcare systems, but represent a further call on scarce healthcare resources. Therefore, in order for a pharmacogenetic test to fulfill its potential beyond the laboratory and into the clinical environment, it must prove itself on a wide range of multifaceted criteria. The test must have proven and reproducible analytical and clinical validity, and stand up to critical appraisal of clinical utility and cost-effectiveness. Pharmacogenetic testing can be considered to be a form of screening, and the experience that has been gained to date in evaluating other forms of screening tests may prove beneficial in evaluating pharmacogenetic technology. It is essential that the goals of pharmacogenetic testing are defined as early as possible to ensure that appropriate studies can be designed to provide the evidence base, and thereby enable appropriate evaluation of the technology by clinicians and healthcare administrators for incorporation into clinical practice. This review focuses on issues that will need to be considered in the scientific assessment of pharmacogenetic testing.

A review of quality of life after predictive testing for and earlier identification of neurodegenerative diseases

The past decade has witnessed an explosion of evidence suggesting that many neurodegenerative diseases can be detected years, if not decades, earlier than previously thought. To date, these scientific advances have not provoked any parallel translational or clinical improvements. There is an urgency to capitalize on this momentum so earlier detection of disease can be more readily translated into improved health-related quality of life for families at risk for, or suffering with, neurodegenerative diseases. In this review, we discuss health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measurement in neurodegenerative diseases and the importance of these "patient reported outcomes" for all clinical research. Next, we address HRQOL following early identification or predictive genetic testing in some neurodegenerative diseases: Huntington disease, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Dementia with Lewy bodies, frontotemporal dementia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, prion diseases, hereditary ataxias, Dentatorubral-pallidoluysian atrophy and Wilson's disease. After a brief report of available direct-to-consumer genetic tests, we address the juxtaposition of earlier disease identification with assumed reluctance toward predictive genetic testing. Forty-one studies examining health-related outcomes following predictive genetic testing for neurodegenerative disease suggested that (a) extreme or catastrophic outcomes are rare; (b) consequences commonly include transiently increased anxiety and/or depression; (c) most participants report no regret; (d) many persons report extensive benefits to receiving genetic information; and (e) stigmatization and discrimination for genetic diseases are poorly understood and policy and laws are needed. Caution is appropriate for earlier identification of neurodegenerative diseases but findings suggest further progress is safe, feasible and likely to advance clinical care.

Consumer awareness and attitudes about insurance discrimination post enactment of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

To examine the awareness and attitudes about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in individuals who made contact with a Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome advocacy group. This is a descriptive study of individuals (n = 1,699) who were invited via email and advertisements to complete an online questionnaire available from August 2009 through December 2010. Response distributions of relevant subgroups were compared using cross tabulation and Chi-squared tests were used. The majority of respondents (69.2 %) had undergone genetic testing (n = 1,156) and 30.2 % had not. Of those who did not undergo genetic testing, the most common reason given for declining testing was cost (28.8 %), followed by concerns about insurance discrimination (19.5 %). More than half (60.5 %) were worried about health insurance discrimination when they first considered genetic testing and 28.6 % were worried about employment discrimination. Slightly more individuals were worried about health insurance discrimination if they had no prior knowledge of GINA. While "cost" was cited most frequently as the reason not to test, "fear of insurance discrimination" was the second most common reason. Knowledge of GINA among consumers is still limited and public education may help promote reduction in fear.

Ethics, Privacy, and the Future of Genetic Information in Healthcare Information Assurance and Security

The risks associated with the misuse and abuse of genetic information are high, as the exploitation of an individual’s genetic information represents the ultimate example of identity theft. Hence, as the frontline of defense, information assurance and security (IAS) practitioners must be intimately familiar with the multidimensional aspects surrounding the use of genetic information in healthcare. To achieve that aim, this chapter addresses the ethical, privacy, economic, and legal aspects of the future uses of genetic information in healthcare and discusses the impact of these uses on IAS. The reader gains an effective ethical framework in which to understand and evaluate the competing demands placed upon the IAS practitioners by the transformative utility of genomics.

Public knowledge of and attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing

BACKGROUND

Variable health literacy and genetic knowledge may pose significant challenges to engaging the general public in personal genomics, specifically with respect to promoting risk comprehension and healthy behaviors.

METHODS

We are conducting a multistage study of individual responses to genomic risk information for Type 2 diabetes mellitus. A total of 300 individuals were recruited from the general public in Durham, North Carolina: 60% self-identified as White; 70% female; and 65% have a college degree. As part of the baseline survey, we assessed genetic knowledge and attitudes toward genetic testing.

RESULTS

Scores of factual knowledge of genetics ranged from 50% to 100% (average=84%), with significant differences in relation to racial groups, the education level, and age. Scores were significantly higher on questions pertaining to the inheritance and causes of disease (mean score 90%) compared to scientific questions (mean score 77.4%). Scores on the knowledge survey were significantly higher than scores from European populations. Participants' perceived knowledge of the social consequences of genetic testing was significantly lower than their perceived knowledge of the medical uses of testing. More than half agreed with the statement that testing may affect a person's ability to obtain health insurance (51.3%) and 16% were worried about the consequences of testing for chances of finding a job.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the relatively high educational status and genetic knowledge of the study population, we find an imbalance of knowledge between scientific and medical concepts related to genetics as well as between the medical applications and societal consequences of testing, suggesting that more effort is needed to present the benefits, risks, and limitations of genetic testing, particularly, at the social and personal levels, to ensure informed decision making.

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 discrimination and life insurance: a systematic review of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Since the late 1980s, genetic discrimination has remained one of the major concerns associated with genetic research and clinical genetics. Europe has adopted a plethora of laws and policies, both at the regional and national levels, to prevent insurers from having access to genetic information for underwriting. Legislators from the United States and the United Kingdom have also felt compelled to adopt protective measures specifically addressing genetics and insurance. But does the available evidence really confirm the popular apprehension about genetic discrimination and the subsequent genetic exceptionalism?

METHODS

This paper presents the results of a systematic, critical review of over 20 years of genetic discrimination studies in the context of life insurance.

RESULTS

The available data clearly document the existence of individual cases of genetic discrimination. The significance of this initial finding is, however, greatly diminished by four observations. First, the methodology used in most of the studies is not sufficiently robust to clearly establish either the prevalence or the impact of discriminatory practices. Second, the current body of evidence was mostly developed around a small number of 'classic' genetic conditions. Third, the heterogeneity and small scope of most of the studies prevents formal statistical analysis of the aggregate results. Fourth, the small number of reported genetic discrimination cases in some studies could indicate that these incidents took place due to occasional errors, rather than the voluntary or planned choice, of the insurers.

CONCLUSION

Important methodological limitations and inconsistencies among the studies considered make it extremely difficult, at the moment, to justify policy action taken on the basis of evidence alone. Nonetheless, other empirical and theoretical factors have emerged (for example, the prevalence and impact of the fear of genetic discrimination among patients and research participants, the (un)importance of genetic information for the commercial viability of the private life insurance industry, and the need to develop more equitable schemes of access to life insurance) that should be considered along with the available evidence of genetic discrimination for a more holistic view of the debate.

Perception, experience, and response to genetic discrimination in Huntington's disease: the Australian results of The International RESPOND-HD study

AIMS

This study examines elements of genetic discrimination among an at-risk, clinically undiagnosed Huntington's disease (HD) population.

METHODS

Sixty at-risk individuals, either positive or negative for the HD genetic mutation, completed a survey regarding their experiences of genetic discrimination, adverse and unfair treatment, and knowledge about existing laws and policies surrounding genetic discrimination.

RESULTS

Sixty eight percent of participants reported feeling "Great benefit" from knowing their genetic test results. Reported benefits of knowledge included planning for the future, making decisions, and many individuals found meaning in active participation in the HD community and in advocating for themselves or families at risk for HD. Many individuals found personal meaning and a sense of community from knowledge of this information and from the ability to participate in research. Despite these positive feelings toward gene testing, results demonstrated that 33% of participants perceived experiences of genetic discrimination, which occurred repeatedly and caused great self-reported distress. Significantly, more gene-positive respondents reported experiencing incidents of genetic discrimination, compared to gene-negative respondents. At least 58 separate incidents of discrimination were reported, the number of incidents ranged from 1 to 10, with 45% of individuals (9/20 respondents) indicating more than one event. Of the most significant events of discrimination, 58% were related to insurance, 21% to employment, 16% to transactions of daily life, and 5% to relationships.

CONCLUSION

Results contribute toward validation of empirical data regarding genetic discrimination.

Alzheimer's disease

Alzheimer's disease is one of the most devastating brain disorders of elderly humans. It is an undertreated and under-recognized disease that is becoming a major public health problem. The last decade has witnessed a steadily increasing effort directed at discovering the etiology of the disease and developing pharmacological treatment. Recent developments include improved clinical diagnostic guidelines and improved treatment of both cognitive disturbance and behavioral problems. Symptomatic treatment mainly focusing on cholinergic therapy has been clinically evaluated by randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies measuring performance-based tests of cognitive function, activities of daily living, and behavior. Cholinesterase inhibitors, including donepezil, tacrine, rivastigmine, and galantamine are the recommended treatment of cognitive disturbance in patients with Alzheimer's disease. The role of estrogen replacement, anti-inflammatory agents, and antioxidants is controversial and needs further study. Antidepressants, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, and hypnotics are used for the treatment of behavioral disturbance. Future directions in the research and treatment of patients with Alzheimer's disease include: applying functional brain imaging techniques in early diagnosis and evaluation of treatment efficacy; development of new classes of medications working on different neurotransmitter systems (cholinergic, glutamatergic, etc), both for the treatment of the cognitive deficit and the treatment of the behavioral disturbances; and developing preventive methods (amyloid p-peptide immunizations and inhibitors of β-secretase and γ-secretase).

Unravelling fears of genetic discrimination: an exploratory study of Dutch HCM families in an era of genetic non-discrimination acts

Since the 1990s, many countries in Europe and the United States have enacted genetic non-discrimination legislation to prevent people from deferring genetic tests for fear that insurers or employers would discriminate against them based on that information. Although evidence for genetic discrimination exists, little is known about the origins and backgrounds of fears of discrimination and how it affects decisions for uptake of genetic testing. The aim of this article is to gain a better understanding of these fears and its possible impact on the uptake of testing by studying the case of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). In a qualitative study, we followed six Dutch extended families involved in genetic testing for HCM for three-and-a-half years. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 57 members of these families. Based on the narratives of the families, we suggest that fears of discrimination have to be situated in the broader social and life-course context of family and kin. We describe the processes in which families developed meaningful interpretations of genetic discrimination and how these interpretations affected family members' decisions to undergo genetic testing. Our findings show that fears of genetic discrimination do not so much stem from the opportunity of genetic testing but much more from earlier experiences of discrimination of diseased family members. These results help identify the possible limitations of genetic non-discrimination regulations and provide direction to clinicians supporting their clients as they confront issues of genetic testing and genetic discrimination.

Knowledge, attitudes and preferences regarding genetic testing for smoking cessation. A cross-sectional survey among Dutch smokers

Objectives Recent research strongly suggests that genetic variation influences smokers' ability to stop. Therefore, the use of (pharmaco) genetic testing may increase cessation rates. This study aims to assess the intention of smokers concerning undergoing genetic testing for smoking cessation and their knowledge, attitudes and preferences about this subject. Design Online cross-sectional survey. Setting Database internet research company of which every inhabitant of the Netherlands of ≥12 years with an email address and capable of understanding Dutch can become a member. Participants 587 of 711 Dutch smokers aged ≥18 years, daily smokers for ≥5 years and smoke on average ≥10 cigarettes/day (response rate=83%). Primary and secondary outcome measures Smokers' knowledge, attitudes and preferences and their intention to undergo genetic testing for smoking cessation. Results Knowledge on the influence of genetic factors in smoking addiction and cessation was found to be low. Smokers underestimated their chances of having a genetic predisposition and the influence of this on smoking cessation. Participants perceived few disadvantages, some advantages and showed moderate self-efficacy towards undergoing a genetic test and dealing with the results. Smokers were mildly interested in receiving information and participating in genetic testing, especially when offered by their general practitioner (GP). Conclusions For successful implementation of genetic testing for smoking in general practice, several issues should be addressed, such as the knowledge on smoking cessation, genetics and genetic testing (including advantages and disadvantages) and the influence of genetics on smoking addiction and cessation. Furthermore, smokers allocate their GPs a crucial role in the provision of information and the delivery of a genetic test for smoking; however, it is unclear whether GPs will be able and willing to take on this role.

What's at stake? Genetic information from the perspective of people with epilepsy and their family members

Substantial progress has been made in identifying genes that raise risk for epilepsy, and genetic testing for some of these genes is increasingly being used in clinical practice. However, almost no empirical data are available from the perspective of people with epilepsy and their family members about the impact of genetic information and potential benefits and harms of genetic testing. To address this gap we conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 40 individuals (22 with epilepsy, 18 unaffected) in the USA from families containing multiple affected individuals who had participated in epilepsy genetics research. The interviews were coded and analyzed using the principles of grounded theory. Several major themes emerged from these interviews. Participants expressed "personal theories of inheritance" that emphasized commonalities among relatives and the idea that disease risk is most shared by family members who share physical or personality traits. Most participants said they would have genetic testing if it were offered. They cited many potential benefits, including learning what caused epilepsy in their family, being better able to care and advocate for children at risk, reducing guilt and blame, providing an increased sense of control, and relieving anxiety in unaffected individuals who test negative. The influence of genetic information on reproduction was a particularly salient theme. Although respondents believed genetic testing would be useful for informing their reproductive choices, they also expressed fear that it could lead to external pressures to modify these choices. Other concerns about the potential negative impact of genetic information included increased blame and guilt, increased stigma and discrimination in employment and insurance, self-imposed limitations on life goals, and alterations in fundamental conceptions of "what epilepsy is." Consideration of the perspectives of people with epilepsy and their family members is critical to understanding the implications of contemporary epilepsy genetic research and testing.

Evolving perspectives on genetic discrimination in health insurance among health care providers

Previous studies have documented that concerns about genetic discrimination (GD) may influence access to and participation in medically necessary care. We sought to characterize how GD issues influence current cancer genetics professional (CGP) practice, determine if their attitudes regarding GD have changed over time, and compare their knowledge and attitudes regarding laws prohibiting GD to a contemporary cohort of non-genetics clinicians. Members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Familial Cancer Special Interest Group were invited to complete a 39 item online survey, adapted from previously published instruments. The resulting data were compared to a survey of CGPs published in 2000 and to a contemporary cohort of non-genetics clinicians (n = 1,181). There were 153 qualified respondents. Compared to the historical CGP cohort (n = 163), a significantly greater proportion said they would bill insurance for the cost of genetic testing for themselves (P < 0.0001). Most CGPs (94%) considered the risk of GD to be low to theoretical, concordant with 64% who expressed confidence in existing federal laws prohibiting GD. The mean knowledge score of CGPs regarding GD protective laws was significantly greater than that of non-genetics clinicians (P < 0.001). As barometers of change, CGPs show a migration in opinion over the past 8 years, with decreased fear of GD and greater knowledge of laws prohibiting GD compared to non-genetics clinicians. Better knowledge of GD and protective legislation, may facilitate non-genetics clinician utilization of genetics and personalized medicine.

Perception, experience, and response to genetic discrimination in Huntington disease: the international RESPOND-HD study

Genetic discrimination-defined as the denial of rights, privileges, or opportunities or other adverse treatment based solely on genetic information (including family history)-is an important concern to patients, healthcare professionals, lawmakers, and family members at risk for carrying a deleterious gene. Data from the United States, Canada, and Australia were collected from 433 individuals at risk for Huntington disease (HD) who have tested either positive or negative for the gene that causes HD and family members of affected individuals who have a 50% risk for developing the disorder but remain untested. Across all three countries, a total of 46.2% of respondents report genetic discrimination or stigma based on either their family history of HD or genetic testing for the HD gene mutation. We report on the overall incidence of discrimination and stigma in the domains of insurance (25.9%), employment (6.5%), relationships (32.9%), and other transactions (4.6%) in the United States, Canada, and Australia combined. The incidence of self-reported discrimination is less than the overall worry about the risk of discrimination, which is more prevalent in each domain. Despite a relatively low rate of perceived genetic discrimination in the areas of health insurance and employment, compared to the perception of discrimination and stigma in personal relationships, the cumulative burden of genetic discrimination across all domains of experience represents a challenge to those at risk for HD. The effect of this cumulative burden on daily life decisions remains unknown.

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.

Ethical considerations in the collection of genetic data from critically ill patients: what do published studies reveal about potential directions for empirical ethics research?

Critical illness trials involving genetic data collection are increasingly commonplace and pose challenges not encountered in less acute settings, related in part to the precipitous, severe and incapacitating nature of the diseases involved. We performed a systematic literature review to understand the nature of such studies conducted to date, and to consider, from an ethical perspective, potential barriers to future investigations. We identified 79 trials enrolling 24 499 subjects. Median (interquartile range) number of participants per study was 263 (116.75-430.75). Of these individuals, 16 269 (66.4%) were Caucasian, 1327 (5.4%) were African American, 1707 (7.0%) were Asian Pacific Islanders and 139 (0.6%) were Latino. For 5020 participants (20.5%), ethnicity was not reported. Forty-eight studies (60.8%) recruited subjects from single centers and all studies examined a relatively small number of genetic markers. Technological advances have rendered it feasible to conduct clinical studies using high-density genome-wide scanning. It will be necessary for future critical illness trials using these approaches to be of greater scope and complexity than those so far reported. Empirical research into issues related to greater ethnic inclusivity, accuracy of substituted judgment and specimen stewardship may be essential for enabling the conduct of such trials.

Ethicolegal aspects of cancer genetics

In the wake of efficacious preventive interventions based on hereditary cancer risk assessment, a number of ethical and legal challenges have emerged. These include issues such as appropriate testing of children and embryos, the "duty to warn" relatives about familial risk, reproductive genetic testing, the risk of genetic discrimination, and equitable access to testing. These and other issues will be discussed within the framework of a bioethical model, with reference to recent case law.

Critical issues in craniofacial care: quality of life, costs of care, and implications of prenatal diagnosis

Since the 2000 Surgeon General's Report on Oral Health (SGROH), substantial areas of inquiry relative to individuals, especially children and youth, with orofacial clefts and other craniofacial conditions have emerged. These areas include access to and cost of care, stigmatization and quality of life, and social and ethical issues around prenatal diagnosis. This update on the 2000 SGROH examines what we have learned about the cost and ability to access cleft and craniofacial care, prenatal diagnosis, and how quality of life is impacted by these conditions and the burden of care. The development of new research tools to assess quality of life since 2000 will permit further study of the impact of oral and craniofacial conditions on children and families and the effect of treatment on quality of life. Despite a better understanding of the higher use of services and increased costs of care for families of children with craniofacial conditions, major gaps in research must be addressed to assist with program planning and policy development for these groups of children and their families. Further work is also needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of craniofacial team care and to better understand family experience with accessing needed care. Finally, prenatal detection and diagnosis of clefts and craniofacial conditions have advanced dramatically, and the roles of craniofacial professionals and teams have been affected. New understandings of prenatal diagnosis and genomic sciences are redefining genetic counseling, therapy, and future preventive initiatives.

Additional patient outcomes and pathways in evaluations of testing

Before medical tests are introduced into practice, they should be properly evaluated. Randomized trials and other comprehensive evaluations of tests and test strategies can best be designed based on an understanding of how tests can benefit or harm patients. Tests primarily affect patients' health by guiding clinical decision making and downstream management, such as the decision to order more tests or to start, stop, or modify treatment. In this article, the authors demonstrate that tests can have additional effects on patient outcome, which may be cognitive, emotional, social, or behavioral. They present a framework to help researchers and policy makers consider the cognitive, emotional, social, and behavioral effects of testing. These additional effects may be important themselves and may also influence the clinical outcomes of testing through different pathways. The authors provide examples from test evaluations in the literature to illustrate how these additional effects can be important in the evaluation of testing or indeed any health intervention.

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.

Ethical considerations in psychiatric genetics

Ethical considerations in psychiatric genetics are highly complex and fluid. This review introduces the reader to the wide range of ethical considerations in this field by examining four characteristics of genetic information. First, genetic information may, to a greater or lesser extent, predict a person's future health. Second, learning about one's genotype may have profound psychosocial consequences. Third, genetic information pertains to a person's biological relatives and thus can affect family members, communities, and population groups. Finally, psychiatric genetics is a rapidly evolving field. None of these characteristics is necessarily "exceptional" or unique to genetics, but they provide a useful framework for teasing apart a complex set of ethical considerations. This article reviews conceptual and empirical data that speak to these four characteristics and then presents a set of conceptual frameworks that can be used to systematically analyze the ethics of psychiatric genetic research and clinical genotyping. Finally, directions for future study are described--including the urgent need to gather data on actual risks and benefits of psychiatric genetic research and clinical applications, so that their utility can be assessed and appropriate ethical safeguards identified.

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. This unit defines clinical validity and clinical utility, provides examples, and considers the implications of these test properties for clinical practice.

Civilian and military genetics: nondiscrimination policy in a post-GINA world

Evidence is emerging of a growing societal consensus about appropriate and inappropriate uses of genetic information. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 provides new legal protections to Americans by prohibiting the discriminatory use of genetic information by health insurers and employers. Additionally, the United States military recently created new policies for fair use of genetic information in the determination of benefits for servicemen and servicewomen leaving military service. Although critical issues remain, such as the potential for genetic information to be used to deny people other forms of insurance, and how the military will use genetic medicine overall, significant progress has been made.

Fear of health insurance loss among individuals at risk for Huntington disease

Genetic testing in Huntington disease, an inherited ultimately fatal neurodegenerative disorder, is infrequent despite wide availability. Factors influencing the decision to pursue testing are largely unknown. We conducted a prospective longitudinal observational study of 1,001 individuals in North America who were at risk for Huntington disease who had not pursued genetic testing prior to enrollment. We evaluated the rationale for remaining untested at baseline, determined the concerns of those who eventually pursued testing, and assessed the population's psychological attributes. We contrasted responses between those who did and did not pursue testing, and between United States and Canadian residents. The principal reasons for remaining untested were comfort with risk and uncertainty and the inability to "undo" knowledge gained. After enrollment, 83 individuals [8.3%] pursued genetic testing. Their greatest concern was losing health insurance, and 41.6% of them [vs. 6.7% of those who did not pursue testing; P < 0.001] reported paying out of pocket for testing or other medical services to conceal their genetic risk from their insurer/employer. Among individuals who were tested, more United States residents [46.1%] than Canadian residents [0.0%; P = 0.02] paid out of pocket for health services or genetic testing. Psychological attributes were similar among individuals who did and did not pursue testing. Individuals at risk for Huntington disease who pursued genetic testing feared losing medical insurance, and many paid out of pocket for medical services. Alleviating the fear of health insurance loss may help those who want to pursue genetic testing for many other conditions. [ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT0052143].

Genetic counseling and testing for common hereditary breast cancer syndromes: a paper from the 2007 William Beaumont hospital symposium on molecular pathology

Throughout the past 15 years, the identification of several genes associated with hereditary breast cancer has fueled the growth of clinical genetic counseling and testing services. In addition, increased knowledge of the genetic and molecular pathways of the known hereditary breast cancer genes, as well as an increased understanding of the impact of testing on individuals has added to the ability to identify, manage, and provide psychosocial support for mutation carriers. This review provides an overview of the clinical features, cancer risks, causative genes, and management for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, Cowden syndrome, and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. This article summarizes the genetic counseling process and genetic test result interpretation, including a review of the key elements involved in the provision of risk assessment and informed consent, as well as a review of the risks, benefits, and limitations of cancer susceptibility genetic testing.

Psycho-social counselling in predictive genetic testing for cancer: the association between number of supportive sessions and client characteristics as assessed by psycho-social workers

Given the increased demand on genetic services, it is important to identify clients who may require relatively more extensive psychosocial support. This paper describes which client characteristics, as assessed in the first psycho-social counselling session, were associated with requiring relatively more psycho-social support (> or = 3 sessions) in the process of predictive testing for cancer. The study population consisted of 244 counselees for hereditary cancer. Data were derived from an electronic data-base, used by psycho-social workers for the systematic registration of relevant details of each counselling session. Data were analysed for two respective groups: (A) patients who had a known mutation in the family and (B) patients with an as yet unknown mutation in the family. Results show that two or more psychosocial sessions were given if the information derived from the first session indicated the client to have childhood experiences with cancer (in group A), to experience the family role and/or the psychological impact as burdensome (in both groups) or to experience the social impact as burdensome (in group B). We conclude that the first assessment by a psychosocial worker already provides valuable information on the psychological support needs of patients. These findings provide insight into possible problem areas for clients dealing with predictive genetic testing.