Genetic testing in adulthood has become increasingly oriented toward predictive testing, which is aimed at determining whether a person is at risk of developing a late-onset genetic condition (e.g., Huntington disease and some forms of cancer) or has a genetic predisposition to a common disease (e.g., heart disease). Before individuals begin the predictive testing process, genetic counseling is advisable. Discovering that one is going to develop an incurable late-onset disease can be traumatic. Individuals in affected families may not wish to know their status if there is nothing they can do to avoid their fate. Even when preventive action is possible—for example, mastectomy to minimize the risk of breast cancer—that knowledge itself can be traumatic. Also, some recommended preventive actions may be hard for individuals to comply with (e.g., behavioral or dietary changes). There is evidence that many individuals have difficulty understanding risk percentages. Without the benefit of counseling, some may underestimate their risk. Alternatively, some individuals who receive diagnoses of genetic conditions may believe that they are facing an unavoidable fate even though preventive action may be effective.
Genetic counseling sessions
A typical genetic counseling session starts with the professional’s ascertaining what it is that the counselee (usually called the proband) expects or wants to learn. The professional spends a large proportion of the initial session taking the proband’s pedigree (recording the proband’s family tree). A pedigree usually includes the names, birth dates, ages, and causes of death and brief medical histories of the proband’s family members over three or more generations. The pedigree may assist the counselor in calculating the likelihood of the proband’s being affected by a genetic condition or passing it on to future generations.
A geneticist may physically examine the proband during the first session. Once all of the relevant information has been collected, the proband, counselors, and anyone else who may be present (e.g., family members, partners, or other medical professionals) discuss the implications. That is the time when the proband asks questions and receives explanations from the counselor. Often, a clear diagnosis cannot be given based on the pedigree and a physical examination. In such a case, the counselee may be sent for follow-up diagnostic testing, which may involve blood tests, X-rays, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Following a genetic counseling session, the counselor usually sends the counselee a letter documenting what was discussed during the session, giving details of the relevant genetic condition, and providing information about available support services and follow up.
Ethical issues in genetic counseling
Persons who are affected by genetic disorders may find the concept of genetic counseling to be confrontational, inappropriate, or part of an eradication process. Societal investment in diagnostic technology and screening programs sends a message that disability is a major problem that should be prevented at all costs. The language of “risk,” “abnormality,” “burden,” and “medical tragedy” may be viewed by disabled people as prejudiced, especially since it ignores the high quality of life that many disabled people achieve.
The aim of genetic counseling sessions for disabled persons often is the same as for individuals without disabilities. But disabled persons who choose not to have children may feel that they are somehow validating society’s view or belief that their own lives are not valuable or worth living. Deciding whether or not to take the risk of passing on a genetic condition can be challenging to a disabled person’s sense of self, raising problematic emotions. A genetic counselor should be able to provide such clients with accurate, balanced, and understandable information; help them to explore their feelings about possible outcomes; and, most important, support the counselees through whatever choice they make.
Since the 1990s, genetic counselors’ stated aspiration to provide nondirective counseling has been debated, and some observers have questioned whether nondirective counseling is achievable. They argue that the language in which counselors present risks and the information they provide about disability are bound to influence counselees’ decision making. In practice, counselees often look to genetic counselors for direction, asking, in essence, “What would you do in this situation?” Genetic counselors must be able to support counselees regardless of the latter’s decision. Thus, counselors need to have a heightened awareness of their own prejudices and moral stands on issues surrounding genetics and disability.
Caroline Bowditch