With regard to international recommendations, guidelines and repo

With regard to international recommendations, guidelines and reports, Sequeiros et al. (2012) concluded that a common consensus definition of genetic testing does not exist. The authors argue that a clear set of precise definitions may help create a common language among geneticists and other health professionals, and that a clear context-dependent, operative definition should always be given. Sirpa Soini’s presentation covers genetic testing legislation. Five countries have enacted genetic-specific laws, and three have comprehensive provisions pertaining to genetic testing in their biomedical legislation.

Central provisions cover the informed consent, autonomy and integrity of the person tested, further uses of tests results, and quality requirements of the personnel and facilities involved. The notion DAPT research buy of genetic exceptionalism was characteristic to the normative reactions in the legal

acts, but Soini (2012) questions how justified this is. Acknowledgments Research grants making this series of lectures possible have been received from: the Erik-Philip Sörensen Foundation for Research in Medicine and the Humanities, the Karin and Hjalmar Tornblad Foundation, the Fahlbeck Foundation and the Nilsson-Ehle Foundations of the Royal Physiographic Society in Lund. All contributors to this special issue are acknowledged for their contributions making this special volume possible. Seminars 11 and 12 were held in collaboration with the Learning BCKDHA and Media Technology Studio (LETStudio),

University Selleckchem EX527 of Gothenburg. Selleck NVP-BGJ398 References Abraham J, Ballinger R (2012) Power, expertise and the limits of representative democracy: genetics as scientific progress or political legitimation in carcinogenic risk assessment of pharmaceuticals? J Community Genet. doi:10.​1007/​s12687-011-0060-2 Cornel MC, van Carla G, El CG, Dondorp WJ (2012) The promises of genomic screening: 1 building a governance infrastructure. J Community Genet. doi:10.​1007/​s12687-011-0056-y Gottweis H, Lauss G (2012) Biobank governance: heterogeneous modes of ordering and democratization. J Community Genet. doi:10.​1007/​s12687-011-0070-0 Howard H, Borry P (2012) Is there a doctor in the house? The presence of physicians in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing context. J Community Genet. doi:10.​1007/​s12687-011-0062-0 Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2002) Genetics and human behaviour—the ethical context. http://​www.​nuffieldbioethic​s.​org/​sites/​default/​files/​Genetics%20​and%20​human%20​behaviour.​pdf Sequeiros J, PanequeM GB, Rantanen E, Javaher P, Nippert I, Schmidtke J, Kääriäainen H, Kristoffersson U, Cassiman J-J (2012) The wide variation of definitions of genetic testing in international recommendations, guidelines and reports. J Community Genet. doi:10.​1007/​s12687-012-0084-2 Soini S (2012) Genetic testing legislation in the Western Europe—a fluctuating regulatory target. J Community Genet. doi:10.

Comments are closed.