Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 1.361
Filter
1.
Eur J Hum Genet ; 32(5): 489-497, 2024 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38480795

ABSTRACT

With the introduction of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) techniques increasing numbers of disease-associated variants are being identified. This ongoing progress might lead to diagnoses in formerly undiagnosed patients and novel insights in already solved cases. Therefore, many studies suggest introducing systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics. Introduction will, however, also have ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social (ELSI) implications that Genetic Health Professionals (GHPs) from laboratories should consider before possible implementation of systematic reanalysis. To get a first impression we performed a scoping literature review. Our findings show that for the vast majority of included articles ELSI aspects were not mentioned as such. However, often these issues were raised implicitly. In total, we identified nine ELSI aspects, such as (perceived) professional responsibilities, implications for consent and cost-effectiveness. The identified ELSI aspects brought forward necessary trade-offs for GHPs to consciously take into account when considering responsible implementation of systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics, balancing the various strains on their laboratories and personnel while creating optimal results for new and former patients. Some important aspects are not well explored yet. For example, our study shows GHPs see the values of systematic reanalysis but also experience barriers, often mentioned as being practical or financial only, but in fact also being ethical or psychosocial. Engagement of these GHPs in further research on ELSI aspects is important for sustainable implementation.


Subject(s)
Genetic Testing , Humans , Genetic Testing/ethics , Genetic Testing/economics , Genetic Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Testing/standards , Genetic Testing/methods , High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing/ethics , Genomics/ethics , Genomics/legislation & jurisprudence , Genomics/methods , Laboratories, Clinical
2.
Hum Reprod ; 39(5): 1117-1130, 2024 May 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38514452

ABSTRACT

STUDY QUESTION: Would the different regulatory approaches for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in Europe permit the implementation of preimplantation genetic testing using polygenic risk scores (PGT-P)? SUMMARY ANSWER: While the regulatory approaches for PGT differ between countries, the space provided for potential implementation of PGT-P seems limited in all three regulatory models. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: PGT is a reproductive genetic technology that allows the testing for hereditary genetic disorders and chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation. Throughout its history, PGT has largely been regarded as an ethically sensitive technology. For example, ethical questions have been raised regarding the use of PGT for adult-onset conditions, non-medical sex selection, and human leukocyte antigen typing for the benefit of existing siblings. Countries in which PGT is offered each have their own approach of regulating the clinical application of PGT, and a clear overview of legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe is lacking. An emerging development within the field of PGT, namely PGT-P, is currently bringing new ethical tensions to the forefront. It is unclear whether PGT-P may be applied within the current regulatory frameworks in Europe. Therefore, it is important to investigate current regulatory frameworks in Europe and determine whether PGT-P fits within these frameworks. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the legal and practical regulation of the use of PGT in seven selected European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK) and critically analyse the different approaches with regards to regulatory possibilities for PGT-P. Between July and September 2023, we performed a thorough and extensive search of websites of governments and governmental agencies, websites of scientific and professional organizations, and academic articles in which laws and regulations are described. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We investigated the legal and regulatory aspects of PGT by analysing legal documents, regulatory frameworks, scientific articles, and guidelines from scientific organizations and regulatory bodies to gather relevant information about each included country. The main sources of information were national laws relating to PGT. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We divided the PGT regulation approaches into three models. The regulation of PGT differs per country, with some countries requiring central approval of PGT for each new indication (the medical indication model: the UK, the Netherlands), other countries evaluating each individual PGT request at the local level (the individual requests model: France, Germany), and countries largely leaving decision-making about clinical application of PGT to healthcare professionals (the clinical assessment model: Belgium, Italy, Spain). In the countries surveyed that use the medical indication model and the individual requests model, current legal frameworks and PGT criteria seem to exclude PGT-P. In countries using the clinical assessment model, the fact that healthcare professionals and scientific organizations in Europe are generally negative about implementation of PGT-P due to scientific and socio-ethical concerns, implies that, even if it were legally possible, the chance that PGT-P would be offered in the near future might be low. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results are based on our interpretation of publicly available written information and documents, therefore not all potential discrepancies between law and practice might have been identified. In addition, our analysis focuses on seven-and not all-European countries. However, since these countries are relevant players within PGT in Europe and since they have distinct PGT regulations, the insights gathered give relevant insights into diverse ways of PGT regulation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that provides a thorough overview of the legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe. Our analysis of how PGT-P fits within current regulation models provides guidance for healthcare professionals and policymakers in navigating the possible future implementation of PGT-P within Europe. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 813707. The authors declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.


Subject(s)
Genetic Testing , Preimplantation Diagnosis , Humans , Preimplantation Diagnosis/ethics , Europe , Genetic Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Testing/ethics , Genetic Testing/methods , Female , Multifactorial Inheritance , Pregnancy , Genetic Risk Score
3.
JAMA ; 330(21): 2049-2050, 2023 12 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37906184

ABSTRACT

This Viewpoint discusses proposed and enacted state legislation to protect genetic privacy for those participating in direct-to-consumer genetic testing and ensuring genetic antidiscrimination for life, health, long-term care, and disability insurance.


Subject(s)
Genetic Privacy , Genetic Testing , Confidentiality , Genetic Privacy/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , Prejudice , Privacy , United States
4.
J Law Med Ethics ; 50(1): 155-156, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35243990

ABSTRACT

This commentary proposes the need for greater normative debate about when, if ever, it is appropriate for insurers to access genetic information of insureds to combat anti-selection.


Subject(s)
Genetic Privacy , Insurance , Genetic Privacy/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans
5.
J Mol Diagn ; 23(10): 1218-1240, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34245921

ABSTRACT

Molecular genetic pathology (MGP) is a subspecialty of pathology and medical genetics and genomics. Genomic testing, which is defined as that which generates large data sets and interrogates large segments of the genome in a single assay, is increasingly recognized as essential for optimal patient care through precision medicine. The most common genomic testing technologies in clinical laboratories are next-generation sequencing and microarray. It is essential to train in these methods and to consider the data generated in the context of the diagnosis, medical history, and other clinical findings of individual patients. Accordingly, updating the MGP fellowship curriculum to include genomics is timely, important, and challenging. At the completion of training, an MGP fellow should be capable of independently interpreting and signing out results of a wide range of genomic assays and, given the appropriate context and institutional support, of developing and validating new assays in compliance with applicable regulations. The Genomics Task Force of the MGP Program Directors, a working group of the Association for Molecular Pathology Training and Education Committee, has developed a genomics curriculum framework and recommendations specific to the MGP fellowship. These recommendations are presented for consideration and implementation by MGP fellowship programs with the understanding that MGP programs exist in a diversity of clinical practice environments with a spectrum of available resources.


Subject(s)
Curriculum , Education, Medical, Graduate/methods , Fellowships and Scholarships , Genomics/education , Genomics/methods , Pathologists/education , Pathology, Molecular/education , Genetic Testing/ethics , Genetic Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing , Humans , Laboratories, Clinical , Precision Medicine/methods , Specimen Handling
7.
Fertil Steril ; 115(2): 282-289, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33579522

ABSTRACT

Recent advancements in reproductive genetics have resulted in the availability of an extraordinary amount of new and detailed information for patients and providers. Whereas this information can inform many who are facing difficult clinical decisions, it can also introduce complex and uncertain choices. Expanded carrier screening and preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy are important examples of new genetic techniques that are now widely used in reproductive medicine. This paper will explore these techniques through a medical-legal prism to better understand the opportunities and obligations incumbent on both patients and providers in this new age of genetic diagnosis.


Subject(s)
Genetic Carrier Screening/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , Preimplantation Diagnosis , Reproductive Medicine/legislation & jurisprudence , Female , Genetic Carrier Screening/methods , Genetic Testing/methods , Humans , Mosaicism/embryology , Pregnancy , Preimplantation Diagnosis/methods , Reproductive Medicine/methods
9.
J Assist Reprod Genet ; 38(5): 1101-1107, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33598752

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To study recent legal cases involving the transfer of the incorrect embryo into patients and learn how fertility clinics can better serve clients, protect themselves financially, and safeguard their physicians' personal assets. METHODS: The Nexis Uni database was used to review legal cases, news, and business publications of previous cases of embryo mix-ups. County and district courthouse dockets were also queried for filings and court documents related to lawsuits involving embryo mix-ups using Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER). Emphasis was placed on court decisions, awarded damages, and legal and media coverage related to embryo mix-up events. RESULTS: A case law review of US legal databases and courthouse dockets was conducted for cases between 2000 and 2020, focusing on lawsuits against reproductive endocrinologists and in vitro fertilization (IVF) facilities offering embryo transfer (ET). Improper labeling and ineffective communication led to errors in the cases reviewed. CONCLUSION: It is prudent for clinics to protect themselves from embryo mix-ups, which can subsequently lead to undesirable clinical outcomes, as well as lawsuits stemming from these errors. This article emphasizes following labeling guidelines when storing embryos, employing a two-step read back method prior to ET, and offering genetic testing when a discrepancy is found in the record. In the case an embryo mix-up does occur, it is recommended to protect personal assets through business organizing procedures and consider settlement offers for policy limits.


Subject(s)
Embryo Transfer/ethics , Fertilization in Vitro/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted/legislation & jurisprudence , Adult , Embryo Transfer/methods , Female , Fertility/genetics , Fertility/physiology , Humans , United States/epidemiology
11.
Eur J Hum Genet ; 29(1): 67-78, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33040093

ABSTRACT

Newborn screening (NBS) is an important part of public healthcare systems in many countries. The provision of information to parents about NBS is now recognised as an integral part of the screening process. Informing parents on all aspects of screening helps to achieve the benefits, promote trust and foster support for NBS. Therefore, policies and guidelines should exist to govern how the information about NBS is provided to parents, taking into account evidence-based best practices. The purpose of our survey was to explore whether any legally binding provisions, guidelines or recommendations existed pertaining to the provision of information about NBS to parents across Europe. Questions were designed to determine the regulatory process of when, by whom and how parents should be informed about screening. Twenty-seven countries participated in the survey. The results indicated that most countries had some sort of legal framework or guidelines for the provision of information to parents. However, only 37% indicated that the provision of information was required prenatally. The majority of countries were verbally informing parents with the aid of written materials postnatally, just prior to sample collection. Information was provided by a neonatologist, midwife or nurse. A website dedicated to NBS was available for 67% of countries and 89% had written materials about NBS for parents. The survey showed that there is a lack of harmonisation among European countries in the provision of information about NBS and emphasised the need for more comprehensive guidelines at the European level.


Subject(s)
Disclosure/standards , Neonatal Screening/standards , Organizational Policy , Parents , Disclosure/legislation & jurisprudence , European Union , Female , Genetic Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Testing/standards , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Male , Neonatal Screening/legislation & jurisprudence , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Surveys and Questionnaires
12.
Trends Genet ; 37(2): 106-108, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32943209

ABSTRACT

Along with the potential for breakthroughs in care and prevention, the search for genetic mechanisms underlying the spread and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) introduces the risk of discrimination against those found to have markers for susceptibility. We propose new legal protections to mitigate gaps in protections under existing laws.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/genetics , Genetic Predisposition to Disease/genetics , Genetic Privacy/legislation & jurisprudence , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/virology , Genetic Markers/genetics , Genetic Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans
13.
Rev. esp. med. legal ; 46(4): 183-190, oct.-dic. 2020.
Article in Spanish | IBECS | ID: ibc-200511

ABSTRACT

El fenotipado de ADN forense mediante massive parallel sequencing es una técnica emergente dentro del campo de la genética forense, que permite predecir características visibles del individuo a partir del ADN. Esta herramienta se ha convertido en una de las más potentes para ayudar a estrechar el cerco investigativo en diferentes casos forenses. Hasta ahora el color de ojos, de piel y de pelo son los rasgos fenotípicos que se pueden predecir con la suficiente precisión y fiabilidad como para usarlos en la práctica forense. Sin embargo, esta técnica no está implementada todavía de manera rutinaria en este campo debido, principalmente, a la falta de conocimiento genético completo sobre la pigmentación y los rasgos faciales humanos; y la menor predictibilidad de los fenotipos intermedios. Además, su aplicación en algunos países ha suscitado una serie de cuestiones éticas y sociales, así como legales, siendo estos últimos los más determinantes en la implementación de esta herramienta


Forensic DNA Phenotyping (FDP) based on massive parallel sequencing (MPS) is an emerging technique within Forensic Genetics that enables the prediction of an individual's externally visible characteristics (EVCs) from DNA. Because of its achievements, FDP has become one of the most useful additional tools for aiding police investigations to narrow down the investigative pool in different types of forensic cases. Eye, hair and skin colour can now be predicted reliably and with practically useful accuracy. However, FDP has not yet been routinely implemented in the forensic science field due to, principally, the lack of complete genetic knowledge of pigmentation and facial traits and the lower predictability of intermediate phenotypes. Furthermore, in some countries its application has given rise to a number of ethical, social and legal issues, the latter being the most restrictive barrier to the implementation of FDP


Subject(s)
Humans , Genetic Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , DNA Fingerprinting/legislation & jurisprudence , Forensic Genetics/methods , Phenotype , Biological Variation, Population/genetics , Databases, Nucleic Acid/organization & administration , Whole Genome Sequencing/classification
15.
Am J Hum Genet ; 107(5): 797-801, 2020 11 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33157006

ABSTRACT

The analogy between genomics and imaging has been an important touchstone in the debate on how secondary findings should be handled in both clinical and research genomics contexts. However, a critical eye is needed to understand whether an analogy like this one provides an adequate basis for policymaking in genomics. Genomics and imaging are undoubtedly similar in certain ways, but whether that similarity is adequate to justify adopting identical policies is a task that requires further analysis. This is highlighted by the fact that secondary findings are produced in other domains of medicine and public health, such as newborn screening programs, routine laboratory panels, and antibiotic sensitivity testing, and that the practices for handling secondary findings in each of these areas are different. These examples demonstrate that medicine has no single comprehensive policy or set of practices for managing secondary findings. Analogies to imaging, newborn screening, routine testing panels, and antibiotic sensitivity testing all lead to different policy options for genomics. In this piece we argue that analogies are a powerful way of driving policy discussions by rendering two different areas of medical practice similar, but an overdependence on a single analogy risks limiting policy discussions in potentially deleterious ways.


Subject(s)
Disclosure/ethics , Genetic Testing/ethics , Genomics/ethics , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Policy Making , Public Health/ethics , Diagnostic Imaging/ethics , Disclosure/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , Genomics/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Incidental Findings , Infant, Newborn , Sequence Analysis, DNA
17.
Trends Biotechnol ; 38(6): 577-579, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32407687

ABSTRACT

The genetic testing industry is progressing rapidly. In particular, the demand of patients with tumors for diagnosis, treatment, and testing drives genetic testing to develop further. Simultaneously, the potential risks of genetic testing cause severe challenges to regulatory departments. In China, a targeted, clear, and unified management model remains absent.


Subject(s)
Genetic Diseases, Inborn/epidemiology , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Genetic Testing/trends , China/epidemiology , Genetic Diseases, Inborn/diagnosis , Genetic Diseases, Inborn/genetics , Genetic Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Risk Factors
18.
Med Sci (Paris) ; 36(5): 515-520, 2020 May.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32452374

ABSTRACT

The genetic tests for "non-rare thrombophilias" (TNR) were introduced into clinical setting immediately after the identification of genetic variants in the mid-90s to predict and prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE). Although being a rare example of a genetic test of susceptibility for complex diseases that has been integrated in medical routine, it is the most widespread post-natal genetics inquiry in France nowadays. Yet, determining whom to test and how to use the results is still controversial. This article outlines the trajectory of its clinical regulation and illustrates the importance of the context of use to understand its diffusion. This analysis is intended to feed a more general reflection on the issues raised by the clinical integration of genetic surveys for common diseases, particularly with regard to the clinical utility of a test (statistical vs. biological), the subjects to be tested (the case index and/or her/his relatives), and the criteria underlying access to these tests (modalities of medico-economic assessment).


TITLE: Des tests génétiques pour prédire des maladies communes. ABSTRACT: Introduit au lendemain de l'identification des « thrombophilies non rares ¼ (TNR), au milieu des années 1990 afin de prédire et de prévenir la maladie thromboembolique veineuse (MTEV), le bilan génétique pour ces thrombophilies est un exemple assez rare de test génétique de susceptibilité pour une maladie complexe, à avoir franchi le pas d'un véritable usage de routine en clinique. Bien que ce test soit le plus répandu des tests de génétique post-natale en France, son usage (À qui proposer le test ? Que faire des résultats ?) fait encore l'objet de débats. Cet article analyse la trajectoire de régulation clinique de ce test et illustre l'importance du contexte spécifique d'usage pour comprendre sa diffusion. Cette analyse vise à nourrir une réflexion plus générale sur les enjeux que pose l'intégration clinique des tests génétiques pour les maladies communes, en considérant notamment les modalités de définition de l'utilité clinique d'un test (statistique versus biologique), des sujets du test (le cas index versus ses apparentés), et des critères en sous-tendant l'accès (modalités des calculs médico-économiques).


Subject(s)
Genetic Testing , Thrombophilia/diagnosis , Thrombophilia/genetics , Access to Information/legislation & jurisprudence , Disclosure/ethics , Disclosure/legislation & jurisprudence , France/epidemiology , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Genetic Testing/ethics , Genetic Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Testing/methods , Health Services Accessibility/ethics , Health Services Accessibility/legislation & jurisprudence , History, 21st Century , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Legislation, Medical , Medical Futility/ethics , Medical Futility/legislation & jurisprudence , Neonatal Screening/ethics , Neonatal Screening/legislation & jurisprudence , Neonatal Screening/methods , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/ethics , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/legislation & jurisprudence , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , Predictive Value of Tests , Thrombophilia/epidemiology
19.
Eur J Cancer ; 132: 100-103, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32335476

ABSTRACT

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) commercial companies offer genetic tests that are presented as allowing individuals the opportunity to increase their capacities to be in charge of their own healthcare managements. DTC companies deny performing medical tests, yet they provide data based on sequencing multigene panel or whole exome. This contradiction allows these companies to escape the requirements of a regulated medical practice that guarantees the quality of the tests, as well as the information and support for tested individuals. Herein, we illustrate the lack of such requirements by analysing the bad experience of a young man who dealt with DTC health genetic testing companies. There is an emergency for DTC testing to be either deprived of any medically relevant information, or carried out in a legally regulated medical framework.


Subject(s)
Diagnostic Errors/prevention & control , Direct-To-Consumer Screening and Testing/standards , Drug Industry/standards , Genetic Testing/standards , Information Dissemination/ethics , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Sequence Analysis, DNA/standards , Adult , Direct-To-Consumer Screening and Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , Drug Industry/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , Genome, Human , Humans , Incidental Findings , Information Dissemination/legislation & jurisprudence , Male , Neoplasms/genetics , Risk Factors
20.
Clin J Oncol Nurs ; 24(2): 135-137, 2020 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32196007

ABSTRACT

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) provides federal safeguards to prohibit employer or insurance discrimination based on personal or familial genetic information or conditions. Awareness of the implications of genetic testing in individuals and families and of state and federal legislation in place for their protection is an essential component of oncology nursing practice. This article discusses the critical role of the oncology nurse in interacting with and providing information about GINA to patients in a cancer care setting engaged in genetic assessment.


Subject(s)
Genetic Privacy/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/genetics , Oncology Nursing , Prejudice , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...