Medicolegal and insurance issues regarding BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene tests in high income countries.

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome is an autosomal dominant cancer susceptibility syndrome mainly due to variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. Patients presenting with BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutations have a lifetime risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer (80% and 40%, respectively). Genetic testing to explore the predisposition to develop cancer represents a pivotal factor in such cases, and this review wants to explore the main implications in terms of medicolegal liability and insurance issues. Medicolegal issues related to these diagnostic processes include: (a) failure to recommend the test; (b) failure to properly interpret the test; (c) failure to correctly translate results into clinical practice; (d) lack of informed consent; and (e) failure to refer patients to specialized genetic counseling. Such errors may lead to compensation since the legal burden inherent in the efficacy of prophylactic interventions is a proof that requires the so-called 'preponderance of the evidence'. Concerning insurance issues, the carriers of such alleles without cancer are healthy because the genetic predisposition is not a disease per se but represents a (relevant) health risk. However, disclosure of these conditions can be impelled by insurers. It can lead to so-called 'genetic discrimination' because insurance companies might use genetic information to limit insurance options or increase their costs. Many private and public healthcare funders do not cover risk reducing surgeries, even when recommended as part of a risk reduction management plan for BRCA gene mutation carriers. Here, positions on these matters from different high income countries are discussed, stressing the importance of a common supranational or international regulatory framework to reach a trade-off between the economic interests of insurers and the rights of carriers not to disclose extremely sensitive information.

Ready for polygenic risk scores? An analysis of regulation of preimplantation genetic testing in European countries.

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.

Clinician perspectives on policy approaches to genetic risk disclosure in families.

Genomic sequencing has emerged as a powerful tool with significant implications for patients and their relatives, however, empirical evidence suggests that effective dissemination of risk information within families remains a challenge. Policy responses to address this issue vary across countries, with Belgium notably lacking specific regulations governing nondisclosure of genetic risk. In this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians from Belgian clinical genetics centers to gain insight into their perspectives on policy approaches to the disclosure of genetic risk within families. Using real-world examples of legislation and court rulings from France, Australia, and the UK, we explored clinician viewpoints on the roles and responsibilities of both patients and clinicians in the family communication process. Clinicians expressed confusion regarding what was legally permissible regarding contacting at-risk relatives. While there was a consensus among participants that patients have a responsibility to inform their at-risk relatives, participants were hesitant to support the legal enforcement of this duty. Clinicians mostly recognized some responsibility to at-risk relatives, but the extent of this responsibility was a subject of division. Our findings highlight the need for a comprehensive policy that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of clinicians and patients to inform at-risk relatives. Furthermore, the study underscores the practical challenges clinicians face in supporting patients through the complex process of family communication, suggesting a need for additional resources and the exploration of alternative approaches to communication.

Systematic reanalysis of genomic data by diagnostic laboratories: a scoping review of ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social implications.

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.

Heritable human genome editing: correction, selection and treatment.

Heritable human genome editing (HHGE) to correct a nuclear gene sequence that would result in a serious genetic condition in a future child is presented as 'treatment' in various ethics and policy materials, and as morally preferable to the 'selection' practice of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), which is subject to the disability critique. However, whether HHGE is 'treatment' for a future child, or another form of 'selection', or whether HHGE instead 'treats' prospective parents, are now central questions in the debate regarding its possible legalisation. This article argues that the idea of 'treatment' for a future child is largely a proxy for 'seriousness of purpose', intended to distinguish HHGE to avoid serious genetic conditions from less obviously justifiable uses; that HHGE is best understood, and morally justified, as a form of 'treatment' for prospective parents who strongly desire an unaffected genetically related child and who have no, or poor, options to achieve this; that HHGE would be morally permissible if consistent with that child's welfare; that legalisation is supportable with reference to the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and that HHGE is morally distinguishable from PGT.

Mapping ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT).

PURPOSE: Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT) has attracted considerable ethical, legal, and social scrutiny, but academic debate often fails to reflect clinical realities. METHODS: Addressing this disconnect, a review of 506 articles from 1999 to 2019 across humanities and social sciences was conducted to synthesize the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of PGT. This review mined PubMed, WoS, and Scopus databases, using both MeSH terms and keywords to map out the research terrain. RESULTS: The findings reveal a tenfold increase in global research output on PGT's ELSI from 1999 to 2019, signifying rising interest and concern. Despite heightened theoretical discourse on selecting "optimal" offspring, such practices were scarcely reported in clinical environments. Conversely, critical issues like PGT funding and familial impacts remain underexplored. Notably, 86% of the ELSI literature originates from just 12 countries, pointing to a research concentration. CONCLUSION: This review underscores an urgent need for ELSI research to align more closely with clinical practice, promoting collaborations among ethicists, clinicians, policymakers, and economists. Such efforts are essential for grounding debates in practical relevance, ultimately steering PGT towards ethical integrity, societal acceptance, and equitable access, aiming to harmonize PGT research with real-world clinical concerns, enhancing the relevance and impact of future ethical discussions.

The Genetic Information Privacy Act: Drawbacks and Limitations.

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.

Anti-Selection is Only the Beginning.

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.

A Curriculum for Genomic Education of Molecular Genetic Pathology Fellows: A Report of the Association for Molecular Pathology Training and Education Committee.

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.

Legal challenges in reproductive genetics.

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.

Liability for embryo mix-ups in fertility practices in the USA.

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.

Genetics and COVID-19: How to Protect the Susceptible.

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.

Regulatory landscape of providing information on newborn screening to parents across Europe.

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.

El fenotipado de ADN como potencial herramienta investigativa en el campo de la genética forense. Estado actual / Forensic DNA phenotyping: a promising tool to aid forensic investigation. Current situation

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

Analogies in Genomics Policymaking: Debates and Drawbacks.

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.