Navigation Links
Academies of science call for amendments to impracticable Genetic Diagnostics Act

Many aspects of the German Genetic Diagnostics Act (Gendiagnostikgesetz) are out of touch with the latest technology, almost impossible to implement in clinical practice, or even detrimental to the success of recognised screening tests, such as newborn screening. The Act, which came into force in February 2010, is in desperate need of amendment. This was the conclusion reached by the Academy Workgroup "Predictive genetic diagnostics as an instrument of disease prevention" of the German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities (for the Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities), and the acatech - German Academy of Science and Engineering. The paper discusses all aspects of genetic testing of healthy individuals to prevent disease, including the medical, ethical, economic and legal dimensions of the issue.

"We are entering the age of genetic medicine," said the Workgroup's spokesperson, Professor Peter Propping, before going on to explain that an objective, factual discussion of the subject was important for the public and for government. Predictive genetic diagnostics involves analysing human genes to identify future disease risks. This type of test is becoming increasingly relevant because science is identifying more and more genetic variations that are linked to predispositions for specific diseases. These include a number of forms of hereditary cancers.

Scientists in the Workgroup agreed that predictive genetic testing should only be conducted at the request and in the interests of an individual. "Respect for the patients' freedom to make their own choices is essential," said Propping. The team categorically rejected eugenic ideas that aim to eliminate specific genes from the genome of an entire population or even go so far as to envision systematically "improving" the human gene pool.

The report also addressed the weaknesses and gaps in Germany's Genetic Diagnostics Act. Propping summed up the findings of the Workgroup by saying, "The Act should protect individuals. But to do so, it must offer adequate responses to questions of clinical practice." He explained that the Act must be amended to deal with the following situations:

Example 1: Newborn screening

The Act defines newborn screening, which has proven successful for decades, as universal genetic screening. This means that parents must be advised on the test prior to the blood sample being taken from their child's heel. However, nurses and midwives are not authorised to give this advice only doctors are. There is increasing evidence that in the case of home births blood samples are frequently not taken and screenings not conducted, even though this is not actually in line with the parents' wishes. As a result it is not always possible to offer sick children proper treatment, even when it is urgently required. Therefore the Act must be amended to allow nurses and midwives to advise parents on the test.

Example 2: The family dimension

The Act places higher value on patient-doctor confidentiality than it does on a doctor's duty to provide care. For example, if tests show that an individual has a treatable, autosomal dominant hereditary disease for which a causative mutation has been identified, he or she is instructed to inform relatives that they may also risk developing the disease. After all, early diagnosis makes it easier to treat many illnesses, such as hereditary forms of breast cancer and intestinal cancer. However, doctors have no powers to check whether this information is passed on within the family or whether it is, perhaps even purposefully, withheld. With this in mind, the Act should not, as a rule, accord lower priority to a doctor's duty to provide care. Doctors should be in a position to assess individual cases and decide whether to inform family members in an appropriate manner of the risks of disease when there is a definite medical benefit in doing so.

Example 3: Data storage

The Act stipulates that as a general rule, doctors must store the results of genetic tests for ten years, after which time the information must be destroyed. This rule applies unless patients request that their information be destroyed sooner or stored for longer, and data must be retained if its destruction would infringe on patient interests worthy of protection. In everyday clinical practice, these regulations are impracticable and inappropriate. It is not always possible to establish within a decade what impact the in contrast to other tests irreversible genetic findings may have at a later date. Furthermore, the realities of clinical practice make it impossible for doctors to reassess each case before the ten-year limit expires and to reach a decision on whether to keep the data or destroy it. Thus, the Act should remove limitations on how long results can be stored.


Contact: Dr. Kathrin Happe

Related medicine news :

1. Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center research shows fish oil component given up to 5 hours after stroke limits brain damage
2. Live streaming of emerging brain science and health news
3. New research from Psychological Science
4. 20th public data release by Allen Institute for Brain Science
5. Management science guru, surviving cancer, offers hope to fellow sufferers, doctors
6. American Chemical Society co-hosts Science and Society discussion on food safety on Nov. 1
7. EMBO recognizes 63 researchers for advances in life sciences
8. Life Sciences Discovery Fund to support drug discovery, foster new R&D initiative
9. Is team science productive?
10. National Medal of Science awarded to Stephen Benkovic of Penn State University
11. UCSFs Prusiner receives Presidents National Medal of Science
Post Your Comments:
(Date:11/24/2015)... ... November 25, 2015 , ... ... Their Care Plan software creates an agreement between the practice owner and ... including financial, scheduling, monitoring, notification, and projections. Click here to ...
(Date:11/24/2015)... ... November 24, 2015 , ... Charitable giving is at its peak during ... the last five weeks of the year totalling over $358 billion in 2014. ... the nation’s charities with those individuals who want to “give back” during the holidays. ...
(Date:11/24/2015)... ... 2015 , ... The hospitals and health systems on this ... care. They have received recognition for excellence from various reputable organizations in areas ... Hospital Review selected hospitals for inclusion based on national rankings and awards from ...
(Date:11/24/2015)... ... 2015 , ... In response to recent news highlighting Oxycodone fraud, Novus Medical ... the United States grew 400 percent between 1999 and 2010, far more than the ... percent of all fatal drug overdoses. (1) , While oxycodone and the extended release ...
(Date:11/24/2015)... ... , ... Serenity Point Rehabilitation, a holistic treatment center for substance abuse located ... the staff members at their recovery center. The videos highlight some of the various ... the things that make their recovery program so unique. , “Making the decision to ...
Breaking Medicine News(10 mins):
(Date:11/25/2015)... 2015 --> ... Lizenz für das Patent über eine neue Hepatitis-B-Behandlung, welches ... innehaben, an Enyo Pharma vergeben haben. Im ... gerufenen und von Edelris gemeinsam mit seinen Partnern Inserm ... für HBV identifiziert, und es wurden neue Inhaltsstoffe entdeckt, ...
(Date:11/24/2015)... , Nov. 25, 2015 WuXi PharmaTech ... ), a leading open-access R&D capability and technology platform ... with operations in China and ... that at an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders held ... proposal to authorize and approve the previously announced agreement ...
(Date:11/24/2015)... Nov. 24, 2015  Array BioPharma Inc. (Nasdaq: ... Executive Officer, Ron Squarer , will present ... New York.  The public is welcome to participate ... Array BioPharma website.Event:Piper Jaffray Annual Healthcare ConferencePresenter:  , ... 2, 2015Time:1:30 p.m. Eastern Time Webcast: ...
Breaking Medicine Technology: