BACKGROUND: Counseling for whole-exome sequencing (WES) could benefit from aligning parents\' pre- and post-disclosure attitudes. A few studies have qualitatively compared parents\' pre- and post-disclosure attitudes toward receiving WES results for their child in a diagnostic setting. This study explored these attitudes in the context of children with a developmental delay.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents (n = 27) of 16 children undergoing diagnostic WES in trio-analysis, both before and after receiving results.
RESULTS: Three key insights emerged. First, the distinction between hoping and expecting was relevant for shaping parents\' experiences with receiving results related to the primary indication. Second, parents of young children whose development of autonomous capacities was uncertain sometimes found themselves in a situation resembling a Catch-22 when confronted with decisions about unsolicited findings (UFs): an important reason for consenting to WES was to gain a better picture of how the child might develop, but in order to make responsible choices about UFs, some ideas of their child\'s development is needed. Third, default opt-ins and opt-outs helped parents fathom new kinds of considerations for accepting or declining UFs in different categories, thereby aiding decision-making.
CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study are relevant for counseling and policy development.

Despite the commercialization of Next generation sequencing (NGS) gene testing, only a few studies have addressed the various ethical and legal problems associated with NGS testing in Korea Here, we reviewed the normative issues that emerged at each stage of the wet analysis and bioinformatics analysis of NGS gene testing. In particular, it was in mind to apply various international guidelines and the principles of bioethics to actual clinical practice. Considering the characteristics of NGS testing, wet analysis of additional testing can be justified if presumptive consent is recognized. Furthermore, the medical relationship between diseases needs to be established and it should be clear that the patient would have given consent if the patient had been aware of the correlation between genes. At the stage of bioinformatics analysis, the question of unsolicited findings arises. In case of unsolicited and relevant findings, according to American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG), a recognized relationship between genes and diseases needs to be established. In case of unsolicited and not-relevant findings, it is almost impossible to determine whether knowing or not knowing the findings is more beneficial to the patient. However, it seems to be certain that the psychological harm an individual may suffer from such information is likely to be greater if the disease is severe and if there is no cure. The list of genes for which the ACMG guidelines impose reporting obligations is a good reference for judgment.

OBJECTIVE: Non-normative uncertainty (uncertainty about empirical facts) and normative uncertainty (uncertainty about moral values or beliefs) regarding unsolicited findings (UFs) might play an important role in clinical genetics. Identifying normative uncertainty is of special interest since it might guide towards novel directions for counseling practice. This study aims to gain insight into the role of non-normative and normative uncertainty regarding UFs, as expressed by counselees and counselors.
METHODS: We performed a secondary qualitative analysis of interviews with counselees (n = 20) and counselors (n = 20) who had been confronted with UFs. Following a deductive approach, we used Han et al.\'s existing theoretical framework of uncertainty, in which we additionally incorporated normative uncertainty.
RESULTS: Major issues of non-normative uncertainty were practical and personal for counselees, whilst counselors\' uncertainty pertained mainly to scientific issues. Normative uncertainty was a major theme throughout the interviews. We encountered the moral conflicts of autonomy vs. beneficence and non-maleficence and of autonomy vs. truthfulness.
CONCLUSIONS: Non-normative uncertainty regarding UFs highlights the need to gain more insight in their penetrance and clinical utility. This study suggests moral conflicts are a major source of feelings of uncertainty in clinical genetics.
CONCLUSIONS: Exploring counselees\' non-normative uncertainties and normative conflicts seems a prerequisite to optimize genetic counseling.

Massively parallel sequencing techniques, such as whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), may reveal unsolicited findings (UFs) unrelated to the diagnostic aim. Such techniques are frequently used for diagnostic purposes in pediatric cases of developmental delay (DD). Yet policy guidelines for informed consent and return of UFs are not well equipped to address specific moral challenges that may arise in these children\'s situations.
In previous empirical studies conducted by our research group, we found that it is sometimes uncertain how children with a DD will develop and whether they could come to possess capacities for autonomous decision-making in the future. Parents sometimes felt this brought them into a Catch-22 like situation when confronted with choices about UFs before undergoing WES in trio-analysis (both the parents\' and child\'s DNA are sequenced). An important reason for choosing to consent to WES was to gain more insight into how their child might develop. However, to make responsible choices about receiving or declining knowledge of UFs, some idea of their child\'s future development of autonomous capacities is needed. This undesirable Catch-22 situation was created by the specific policy configuration in which parents were required to make choices about UFs before being sequencing (trio-analysis). We argue that this finding is relevant for reconfiguring current policies for return of UFs for WES/WGS and propose guidelines that encompass two features. First, the informed consent process ought to be staged. Second, differing guidelines are required for withholding/disclosing a UF in cases of DD appropriate to the level of confidence there is about the child\'s future developmental of autonomous capacities.
When combined with a dynamic consent procedure, these two features of our guidelines could help overcome significant moral challenges that present themselves in the situations of children undergoing genomic sequencing for clarifying a DD.

Unsolicited findings (UFs) from diagnostic genetic testing are a subject of debate. The emerging consensus is that some UFs from genetic testing should be disclosed, but recommendations on UF disclosure generally leave room for variation in practice. This study aimed to explore clinical geneticists\' views on and experiences with UFs during pretest counseling and UF disclosure. We interviewed 20 certified clinical genetics medical specialists and clinical genetics residents, working in 7 Dutch genetic centers. Participants indicated that discussing the probability of detecting UFs is an integral part of pretest counseling and informed consent. However, they expressed doubts about the degree to which this discussion should occur and about what information they should share with patients. They argued that the contents of their counseling should depend on the individual patient\'s capacity to understand information. These results endorse the importance of tailored pretest counseling alongside informed consent for optimal genetic consultations. While \"medical actionability\" is broadly accepted as an important criterion for the disclosure of UFs, participants experienced substantial uncertainty regarding this concept. This study underscores the need for further demarcation of what exactly constitutes medical actionability. Installation of an expert panel to help healthcare professionals decide what variants to disclose will support them when facing the dilemmas presented by UFs.

Legal, financial and organizational challenges and the absence of coherent international guidelines and legal frameworks still discourage many genetic studies to share individual research results with their participants. Studies and institutions deciding to return genetic results will need to design their own study-specific return policy after due consideration of the ethical responsibilities. The Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study, a healthy cohort study, did not foresee the return of individual genomic results during its baseline phase. However, as it was expected that the follow-up phase would generate an increasing amount of reliable genetic results, an update of the return of research results (RoRR) policy became necessary. To inform this revision, an empirical study using mixed methods was developed to investigate the views of CHRIS research participants (20), local general practitioners (3) and the local genetic counselling service (1). During the interviews, three different examples of potential genetic results with a very diverse potential impact on participants were presented: breast cancer, Parkinson disease and Huntington disease. The CHRIS participants also completed a short questionnaire, collecting personal information and asking for a self-evaluation of their knowledge about genetics. This study made it clear that research participants want to make autonomous decisions on the disclosure or non-disclosure of their results. While the motivations for participants\' decisions were very diverse, we were able to identify several common criteria that had a strong influence on their choices. Providing information on these factors is crucial to enable participants to make truly informed decisions.

With the advancement of science in the area of genetics and genomics, special ethical considerations should be taken in addition to the general ethical framework followed in research. Genetic research can reveal information about the susceptibility of an individual to disease and hence about his/her future health. Such information may be of interest and benefit to research participants, especially if preventive strategies exist. It may also expose them to other risks or anxieties when incidental findings that were not the primary scope of the study are found. Ethical guidelines acknowledge the duty of researchers to disclose incidental findings (IFs) to participants. In this review, we recommend four steps approach that researchers can use to disclose incidental findings: plan for IFs, discuss IFs in informed consent, identify and disclose IFs. Verification and identification of IFs should follow a categorical stratification based on the importance of the findings and the presence of a beneficial intervention to the participants.

Despite widespread use of genomic sequencing (GS) in clinical care, there has been little exploration of actual experiences of genetic health professionals (GHPs) using GS in clinical practice worldwide. To address this, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 clinical geneticists and genetic counselors across Europe, Australia, and Canada to explore their experiences with returning results from GS to patients. GHPs remarked that patients\' reactions to receiving causative results vary; some patients are relieved or appreciative at identification of a genetic cause, while others express frustration that finding an answer does not lead to a treatment. GHPs discussed the importance of managing expectations in pre-test counseling to minimize disappointment. Although some patients experience mild distress, they generally cope well receiving unsolicited findings and appreciate being informed of their increased risk. While many GHPs felt patients understand what a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) means, a proportion found VUS quite difficult to convey and had concerns for patients\' level of understanding. A proportion mentioned concerns regarding potential negative repercussions of non-genetic clinicians misinterpreting the significance of VUS. These results provide important insights into the challenges GHPs can experience returning GS results to patients, highlighting a need for additional training for GHPs and non-genetic clinicians.

Next-generation sequencing techniques enable unsolicited findings to be detected. This discovery raises ethical questions concerning the return of these findings. Our study aimed to highlight the views of the general public, patients under supervision and health professionals concerning the acceptability of disclosing unsolicited results to patients. In total, 449 participants assessed scenarios, consisted of all combinations of three factors (patient\'s information and consent, prevention and treatment of the unsolicited disease and doctor\'s decision). The response profiles were grouped into six clusters. The participants took ethical aspects into account, but health professionals also considered the medical aspects to a greater extent.

Like any new technology, rapid integration of genomic sequencing (GS) into the clinical setting can pose challenges for genetic health professionals (GHPs) using it to diagnose patients. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors across Europe, Australia and Canada to gain a better understanding of the issues they were experiencing when requesting GS and receiving reports from laboratories. There was a spectrum of interactions between genetic health professionals and laboratories. This ranged from those that almost exclusively request sequencing from the laboratory that is affiliated with their genetic service, to those who do not have access to exome sequencing \'in-house\' and instead send patient samples to a selection of different external laboratories. In general, a closer interaction between the clinicians and the laboratory scientists increased the involvement of the clinicians in the analysis/interpretation process. This appeared to lead to fewer, but more clinically relevant variants being reported, and greater GHP satisfaction in what is reported. Our findings suggest that GHPs consider integration of clinical expertise into the analysis/interpretation process is critical to ensure that the variants reported are of high clinical significance to patients. They also highlight the importance of providing GHPs with training in report interpretation.