Health-care systems as well as legislators and society seem largely unprepared to face and manage the massive production of genetic risk information. Ethics committees and professional bodies usually do not involve the individuals directly concerned in defining guidelines for genetic risk communication. Therefore, they do not always reflect people's needs and preferences. We argue in this article that we currently experience a cultural shift in medicine where individuals' concerns and preferences regarding genetic risk information are playing a more significant role than before, and that this should have some normative implications. We are going toward a situation where individual citizens are approached as consumers by personal genomics companies [Prainsack: Account Res 2011;18:132-147]. In clinical and research contexts, individuals are also increasingly informed about their own responsibilities for counterbalancing their genetic risk by making individual health care and lifestyle choices. In this situation, communication of genetic risk information may rather be regulated like traffic and markets in which consumers' decision-making power has a fundamental role in the management and regulation of how a service should be provided, as well as in the creation of policy and legislation. We acknowledge that markets may be different depending on different genetic conditions. For example, genetic risk communication for rare diseases, where a close relationship with clinicians is of paramount significance, should be differently regulated than personal genetic profiles of complex diseases, where contributing risk factors related to lifestyle are modifiable by the individual.

Keywords:
Genetic testing, Psychosocial effects, Tragic choices, Ethics, Genetic services market
1.
Andrews LB, Fullarton JE, Holtzman NA, Motulsky AG (eds): Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy, Vol 1. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 1994.
2.
Gilbar R: Communicating genetic information in the family: the familial relationship as the forgotten factor. J Med Ethics 2007;33:390-393.
3.
Su P: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a comprehensive view. Yale J Biol Med 2013;86:359.
4.
Hogarth S, Javitt G, Melzer D: The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2008;9:161-182.
5.
Hansson MG: Taking the patient's side: the ethics of pharmacogenetics. Per Med 2010;7:75-85.
6.
Caulfield T, McGuire AL: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: perceptions, problems, and policy responses. Annu Rev Med 2012;63:23-33.
7.
Fears R, ter Meulen V; EASAC-FEAM Working Group: The perspective from EASAC and FEAM on direct-to-consumer genetic testing for health-related purposes. Eur J Human Genet 2013;21:703-707.
8.
Sharp RR, Goldlust ME, Eng C: Addressing gaps in physician education using personal genomic testing. Genet Med 2011;13:750-751.
9.
Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA, Kahn JP, Cho MK, Clayton EW, Illes J: Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:219-248.
10.
Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, Kalia SS, Korf BR, Martin CL, Rehm HL: ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 2013;15:565-574.
11.
van El CG, Dondorp WJ, De Wert GMWR, Cornel MC: ESHG calls for prudent use of WGS-based testing. Science 2013;341:958-959.
12.
Howard HC, Borry P: Survey of European clinical geneticists on awareness, experiences and attitudes towards direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Genome Med 2013;5:45.
13.
McGuire AL, Burke, W: An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons. JAMA 2008;300:2669-2671.
14.
Vassy JL, Korf BR, Green RC: How to know when physicians are ready for genomic medicine. Sci Transl Med 2015;7:287fs19.
15.
Grol R, Wensing M, Mainz J, Jung HP, Ferreira P, Hearnshaw H, et al; European Task Force on Patient Evaluations of General Practice Care (EUROPEP): Patients in Europe evaluate general practice care: an international comparison. Br J Gen Pract 2000;50:882-887.
16.
Levit L, Balogh E, Nass S, Ganz PA: Patient-centered communication and shared decision making; in: Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis. Washington, DC, Institute of Medicine, 2013, pp 91-125.
17.
Ahlquist L: Practising Empowerment. Empowerment in Action. Edinburgh, Age Concern Scotland, 1997.
18.
Hansson MG: The Private Sphere: An Emotional Territory and Its Agent. Philosophical Studies in Contemporary Culture, Vol 15. Springer Netherlands, Springer Science & Business Media, 2007.
19.
Oliveri S, Renzi C, Pravettoni G: Toward an in-depth profiling of DTC users. Clin Genet 2015;88:505-506.
20.
Katapodi MC, Lee KA, Facione NC, Dodd MJ: Predictors of perceived breast cancer risk and the relation between perceived risk and breast cancer screening: a meta-analytic review. Prev Med 2004;38:388-402.
21.
Bottorff JL, Ratner PA, Johnson JL, Lovato CY, Joab SA: Communicating cancer risk information: the challenges of uncertainty. Patient Educ Couns 1998;33:67-81.
22.
Croyle RT, Lerman C: Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999;25:59-66.
23.
Fioretti C, Smorti A: Improving doctor-patient communication through an autobiographical narrative theory. Commun Med 2014;11:275-284.
24.
Yusuf S, Hawken S, Ôunpuu S, Dans T, Avezum A, Lanas F; INTERHEART Study Investigators: Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): case-control study. Lancet 2004;364:937-952.
25.
Institute of Medicine: Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2012, pp 52-53.
26.
Sivell S, Elwyn G, Gaff CL, Clarke AJ, Iredale R, Shaw C, Edwards A: How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: systematic review. J Genet Couns 2008;17:30-63.
27.
Calabresi G, Bobbitt P: Tragic Choices. New York, WW Norton & Company, 1978.
28.
Prainsack B: Voting with their mice: personal genome testing and the ‘participatory turn' in disease research. Account Res 2011;18:132-147.
29.
McBride CM, Koehly LM, Sanderson SC, Kaphingst KA: The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors. Annu Rev Public Health 2010;31:89-103.
30.
Mendick N, Young B, Holcombe C, Salmon P: The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives. Soc Sci Med 2010;70:1904-1911.
31.
Featherstone K, Gregory M, Atkinson PA: The moral and sentimental work of the clinic: the case of genetic syndromes; in Atkinson PA, Glasner PE, Greenslade HT (eds): New Genetics, New Identities. London, Routledge, 2006, pp 101-119.
32.
Tifft CJ, Adams DR: The National Institutes of Health undiagnosed diseases program. Curr Opin Pediatr 2014;26:626-633.
33.
Pierucci P, Lenato GM, Suppressa P, Lastella P, Triggiani V, Valerio R, Sabbà C: A long diagnostic delay in patients with hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia: a questionnaire-based retrospective study. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2012;7:33.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.