Do genomic tests enhance autonomy?

Policy Guidance for Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Services: Framework Development Study

BACKGROUND

The online offer of commercial genetic tests, also called direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GTs), enables citizens to gain insight into their health and disease risk based on their genetic profiles. DTC-GT offers often consist of a combination of services or aspects, including advertisements, information, DNA analysis, and medical or lifestyle advice. The risks and benefits of DTC-GT services have been debated and studied extensively, but instruments that assess DTC-GT services and aid policy are lacking. This leads to uncertainty among policy makers, law enforcers, and regulators on how to ensure and balance both public safety and autonomy and about the responsibilities these 3 parties have toward the public.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop a framework that outlines aspects of DTC-GTs that lead to policy issues and to help provide policy guidance regarding DTC-GT services.

METHODS

We performed 3 steps: (1) an integrative literature review to identify risks and benefits of DTC-GT services for consumers and society in Embase and Medline (January 2014-June 2022), (2) structuring benefits and risks in different steps of the consumer journey, and (3) development of a checklist for policy guidance.

RESULTS

Potential risks and benefits of DTC-GT services were mapped from 134 papers and structured into 6 phases. In summary, these phases were called the consumer journey: (1) exposure, (2) pretest information, (3) DNA analysis, (4) data management, (5) posttest information, and (6) individual and societal impact. The checklist for evaluation of DTC-GT services consisted of 8 themes, covering 38 items that may raise policy issues in DTC-GT services. The themes included the following aspects: general service content, validity and quality assurance, potential data and privacy risks, scientific evidence and robustness, and quality of the provided information.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the consumer journey and the checklist break the DTC-GT offer down into key aspects that may impact and compromise individual and public health, safety, and autonomy. This framework helps policy makers, regulators, and law enforcers develop methods to interpret, assess, and act in the DTC-GT service market.

The ethics of polygenic scores in psychiatry: minefield or opportunity for patient-centered psychiatry?

Recent advancements in psychiatric genetics have sparked a lively debate on the opportunities and pitfalls of incorporating polygenic scores into clinical practice. Yet, several ethical concerns have been raised, casting doubt on whether further development and implementation of polygenic scores would be compatible with providing ethically responsible care. While these ethical issues warrant thoughtful consideration, it is equally important to recognize the unresolved need for guidance on heritability among patients and their families. Increasing the availability of genetic counseling services in psychiatry should be regarded as a first step toward meeting these needs. As a next step, future integration of novel genetic tools such as polygenic scores into genetic counseling may be a promising way to improve psychiatric counseling practice. By embedding the exploration of polygenic psychiatry into the supporting environment of genetic counseling, some of the previously identified ethical pitfalls may be prevented, and opportunities to bolster patient empowerment can be seized upon. To ensure an ethically responsible approach to psychiatric genetics, active collaboration with patients and their relatives is essential, accompanied by educational efforts to facilitate informed discussions between psychiatrists and patients.

From Expectations to Experiences: Consumer Autonomy and Choice in Personal Genomic Testing

Background: Personal genomic testing (PGT) offers individuals genetic information about relationships, wellness, sporting ability, and health. PGT is increasingly accessible online, including in emerging markets such as Australia. Little is known about what consumers expect from these tests and whether their reflections on testing resonate with bioethics concepts such as autonomy.Methods: We report findings from focus groups and semi-structured interviews that explored attitudes to and experiences of PGT. Focus group participants had little experience with PGT, while interview participants had undergone testing. Recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings were critically interpreted with reference to bioethics scholarship on autonomy.Results: Fifty-six members of the public participated in seven focus groups, and 40 individuals were interviewed separately. Both groups valued the choice of PGT, and believed that it could motivate relevant actions. Focus group themes centered on the perceived value of choices, knowledge enabling action and knowledge about the self. Interview themes suggest that participants reflexively engage with their PGT information to make meaning, and that some appreciate its shortcomings. Critical interpretation of findings shows that while consumers of PGT are able to exercise a degree of autonomy in choosing, they may not be able to achieve a substantive conceptualization of autonomy, one that promotes alignment with higher-order desires.Conclusions: PGT consumers can critically reason about testing. However, they may uncritically accept test results, may not appreciate drawbacks of increased choice, or may overestimate the potential for information to motivate behavioral change. While consumers appear to be capable of substantive autonomy, they do so without ongoing support from companies. PGT companies promote a problematic ("default") account of autonomy, reliant on empowerment rhetoric. This leaves consumers vulnerable to making decisions inconsistent with their higher-order desires. As PGT expands, claims about its power and value need to be carefully drawn.

Direct to consumer genetic testing and the libertarian right to test

I sketch a libertarian argument for the right to test in the context of 'direct to consumer' (DTC) genetic testing. A libertarian right to genetic tests, as defined here, relies on the idea of a moral right to self-ownership. I show how a libertarian right to test can be inferred from this general libertarian premise, at least as a prima facie right, shifting the burden of justification on regulators. I distinguish this distinctively libertarian position from some arguments based on considerations of utility or autonomy, which are sometimes labelled 'libertarian' because they oppose a tight regulation of the direct to consumer genetic testing sector. If one takes the libertarian right to test as a starting point, the whole discussion concerning autonomy and personal utility may be sidestepped. Finally, I briefly consider some considerations that justify the regulation of the DTC genetic testing market, compatible with the recognition of a prima facie right to test.