The genetic revolution: new ethical issues for obstetrics and gynaecology

The personal is political, the professional is not: conscientious objection to obtaining/providing/acting on genetic information

Conscientious objection (CO) to genetic testing raises serious questions about what it means to be a health-care professional (HCP). Most of the discussion about CO has focused on the logic of moral arguments for and against aspects of CO and has ignored the social context in which CO occurs. Invoking CO to deny services to patients violates both the professional's duty to respect the patient's autonomy and also the community standards that determine legitimate treatment options. The HCP exercising the right of CO may make it impossible for the patient to exercise constitutionally guaranteed rights to self-determination around reproduction. This creates a decision-making imbalance between the HCP and the patient that amounts to an abuse of professional power. To prevent such abuses, professionals who wish to refrain from participating have an obligation to warn prospective patients of their objections prior to establishing a professional-patient relationship or, if a relationship already exists, to arrange for alternative care expeditiously.

Cancer genetics: consultants' perceptions of their roles, confidence and satisfaction with knowledge

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Genetic testing for susceptibility for common cancers is widely available. Cancer specialists and specialists in other areas may have a role in identifying and referring patients who would benefit from a consultation with a specialist in genetics. This study aimed to find out which consultants believed that genetic testing was relevant to their practice. We also wanted to determine their views of their roles in relation to genetic testing, their confidence in these roles, and the value of different educational tools.

METHODS

This was a self-completed, cross-sectional, postal survey of all the consultants in Northern Ireland (n=520, response rate=59.3%) identified from the Central Services Agency list.

RESULTS

Three hundred and ninety questionnaires were returned (44%). A total of 28.6% did not complete the questionnaire stating that genetics was not relevant to their practice. Few consultants reported having consultations related to genetic disease, receiving training in genetics and referring to genetics services. There was some dissatisfaction with their current knowledge of genetics and they believed that guidelines and educational tools may be useful. The respondents lacked confidence in undertaking some of their roles. Through their responses to the cancer scenarios, these consultants showed that they would offer appropriate advice and referrals. Many consultants did not know if family history information should be provided to insurance companies.

CONCLUSIONS

Some consultants may require further training to enable them to fulfil their roles in relation to genetics. Tools or guidelines to assist with referral decisions may also be useful. Consultants may need clearer guidance regarding the provision of family history information to insurance companies.

Genetic testing: practical, ethical, and counseling considerations

Genetic testing is becoming a much more common practice in medicine today. This presents a unique set of challenges for medical professionals in virtually all specialties. The practical aspects of determining which test to order, and in interpreting the result accurately in the context of the family history, can be difficult. Additionally, the ethical conundrums that frequently present themselves when genetic risk assessment and/or genetic testing is being considered can be daunting. These challenges present real concerns for medical professionals and patients alike. Included in this article is a review of some of the practical and ethical complexities associated with genetic testing. Pretest and posttest genetic counseling is also emphasized as an important and essential process in today's medical practice.