Suchergebnisse

In this commentary, we critically review the Quebec Court of Appeal's reference decision to the effect that the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (GNDA) is unconstitutional. In sum, the court held that the federal government exceeded its criminal law power through the GNDA, as the Act did not have a valid criminal law purpose. The decision was met with opposition, as advocacy groups for Canadians suffering from genetic diseases or genetic predispositions viewed the GNDA as a step in the right direction and were hopeful that it would offer protection from genetic discrimination. In closing, we argue that the consequences of the Court of Appeal's opinion will be less dire than anticipated by some advocacy groups. In fact, we suggest that this decision brings about a unique opportunity for progress, where stakeholders can engage the public and policymakers in a forward- looking debate on the use of genetic information. ; Dans ce commentaire, nous examinons de façon critique la décision de renvoi de la Cour d'appel du Québec à l'effet que la Loi sur la non-discrimination génétique (LNDA) est inconstitutionnelle. En résumé, la Cour a conclu que le gouvernement fédéral a outrepassé ses pouvoirs en matière de droit pénal par l'entremise de la LNDA, car celle-ci n'avait pas d'objet valide en droit pénal. Cette décision a fait l'objet d'une opposition car les groupes de défense des intérêts des Canadiens souffrant de maladies génétiques ou de prédispositions génétiques considéraient la LNDA comme un pas dans la bonne direction et espéraient qu'elle offrirait une protection contre la discrimination génétique. En terminant, nous soutenons que les conséquences de l'avis de la Cour d'appel seront moins graves que ne le prévoient certains groupes de défense. En fait, nous suggérons que cette décision offre une occasion unique de progrès, où les intervenants peuvent faire participer le public et les décideurs à un débat tourné vers l'avenir sur l'utilisation de l'information génétique.

Efforts are underway to harmonise the return of individual results and incidental findings from whole genome sequencing (WGS) across research contexts and countries. We reviewed international, regional and national laws and policies applying to return across 20 countries to identify areas of convergence and divergence. Discrepancies between laws and policies are most problematic where they cannot be reconciled through harmonisation of project-level governance. Rules for the return of results apply at different levels in different jurisdictions (e.g., human subjects research, biobanks, clinical trials, genomic sequencing, and genetic/personal data), complicating comparison. A particular concern for harmonisation are the (often contradictory) rules about when results must, should, may, or must not be returned. Adding confusion are different thresholds for utility (medical, familial, reproductive, and/or personal). The importance of respecting individual choices to know or not know is widely recognised, though some norms emphasise respect for personal preferences. Another troubling observation is that requirements for data quality, variant assessment, and the effective communication of results are evolving in uneven ways. There is a growing gap between researchers with the expertise, infrastructure, and resources to meet these requirements and those without, threatening international collaboration. Best practices for the return of individual genomic results are sorely needed to inform not only the ethical return of results, but also future legislative and policy efforts.

The success of risk-stratified approaches in improving population-based breast cancer screening programs depends in no small part on women's buy-in. Fear of genetic discrimination (GD) could be a potential barrier to genetic testing uptake as part of risk assessment. Thus, the objective of this study was twofold. First, to evaluate Canadian women's knowledge of the legislative context governing GD. Second, to assess their concerns about the possible use of breast cancer risk levels by insurance companies or employers. We use a cross-sectional survey of 4293 (age: 30–69) women, conducted in four Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Colombia, Ontario and Québec). Canadian women's knowledge of the regulatory framework for GD is relatively limited, with some gaps and misconceptions noted. About a third (34.7%) of the participants had a lot of concerns about the use of their health information by employers or insurers; another third had some concerns (31.9%), while 20% had no concerns. There is a need to further educate and inform the Canadian public about GD and the legal protections that exist to prevent it. Enhanced knowledge could facilitate the implementation and uptake of risk prediction informed by genetic factors, such as the risk-stratified approach to breast cancer screening that includes risk levels.

The success of risk-stratified approaches in improving population-based breast cancer screening programs depends in no small part on women's buy-in. Fear of genetic discrimination (GD) could be a potential barrier to genetic testing uptake as part of risk assessment. Thus, the objective of this study was twofold. First, to evaluate Canadian women's knowledge of the legislative context governing GD. Second, to assess their concerns about the possible use of breast cancer risk levels by insurance companies or employers. We use a cross-sectional survey of 4293 (age: 30–69) women, conducted in four Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Colombia, Ontario and Québec). Canadian women's knowledge of the regulatory framework for GD is relatively limited, with some gaps and misconceptions noted. About a third (34.7%) of the participants had a lot of concerns about the use of their health information by employers or insurers; another third had some concerns (31.9%), while 20% had no concerns. There is a need to further educate and inform the Canadian public about GD and the legal protections that exist to prevent it. Enhanced knowledge could facilitate the implementation and uptake of risk prediction informed by genetic factors, such as the risk-stratified approach to breast cancer screening that includes risk levels.