Genetic Counseling and Predictive Testing in Huntington’s Disease: Ethical Considerations and Impact

by

Introduction

Huntington’s Disease (HD) is one of the most horrifying hereditary diseases that hits the central nervous system and causes neuronal degradation. They are typified by involuntary movements, dementia, and psychiatric symptoms, and the disease is inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion, which makes each offspring of a deceased parent have an equal possibility of receiving the mutant gene. Moreover, since the symptoms begin to develop when one is of working age, people with genetic risk factors might spend years and even decades in the dark about their genetics. Through the creation of genetic tests that predict the likelihood of Huntington’s disease, its management has progressively pointed to the categorical horizon since the symptoms manifest long after the disease has progressed to its definitive stages. However, it comes with several other problems, being an ethically complex innovation that invariably affects the individual and society. The purpose of this article is to analyze the benefits and risks of genetic counseling and predictive testing and the moral issues related to Huntington’s disease.

Predictive Testing Role and the Impact

Predictive genetic testing for Huntington’s disease would involve analysis of a person’s DNA to assess whether he or she carries the causative, mutated gene for the disorder. It could also be done for asymptomatic individuals at risk due to family history. Again, results are of great consequence in that a positive test establishes an individual will, at some future date, develop the disease. Again, none allows prediction of age of onset or degree of symptoms.

It opens a floodgate of questions. Among others, of course, the most important one is: Should predictive testing be done in families at risk for Huntington’s disease? What might be the psychological, social, and ethical implications of knowing one’s genetic fate? How can the information about a person’s genetic make-up best be handled within families and by health professionals? The sorts of questions that impress one immediately are the complex interactions existing between medical knowledge and ethical responsibility. Genetic counseling therefore plays a major role in predictive testing for Huntington’s disease by informing the patient and his or her family about the sickness, its inheritance risks, and possible consequences that could result from such testing. More importantly, genetic counseling would enable him or her to decide because of the emotional and psychological impact of undergoing a test with a diagnosis that would alter his or her life altogether.

The counselor helps the individual reach a decision, making sure that every person understands all the implications of the test results. This is an important step since the act of deciding to take the test is an intensely personal one, with far-reaching potential consequences. On one hand, to some, knowing finally what their genetic status is and being able to better plan for the future can be very much a relief. Others may feel anxious, depressed, or fatalistic owing to such knowledge on the other hand. Genetic counseling further allows these families to convey the risks and implications of Huntington’s among themselves. As HD is a genetic disorder, testing or not may have several implications within the family. Some may decide to test for the benefit of their children or siblings, and some may decide not to test for the sake of avoiding psychological damage.

Yearwise Publication Trend on “huntingtons disease”

Find publication trends on relevant topics

Ethical Considerations in Predictive Testing

The decision-making process to learn one’s genetic status through predictive testing for Huntington’s disease raises several ethically thorny issues. Key among these are the principles of autonomy, informed consent, confidentiality, and discrimination. Autonomy is the principle of medical ethics that upholds the right of individuals to independently manage their affairs regarding health care. It would, therefore, in the context of predictive testing, mean that one should be free to autonomously decide between undergoing testing or not and free from any undue influences or pressures from family members, healthcare providers, or any other persons. Informed consent procedures are, therefore, very important in ensuring that one indeed understands the stake and the risks involved, benefits, and limitations the test may have before reaching a decision. Nevertheless, in some cases, the complexity of the information together with the emotional burden of the decision challenges the possibility of genuinely informed consent.

Another important and sensitive problem of an ethical nature that is associated with the area of predictive testing is confidentiality. While predictive individuals may wish to be anonymous about their status even from close family members, the fact that Huntington’s is inherited means test results for individuals have major implications for other family members. Thus, unlike questions of political freedoms, it is argued that healthcare providers have a moral obligation to inform relatives at risk or that it is an individual’s right to anonymity. It is a balancing act fraught with dangers and debates when the issues of patient confidentiality are weighed against health benefits concerning information to at-risk relatives.

Among the major risks attributed to predictive testing are discrimination and stigmatization. Persons with a positive test for the Huntington’s disease gene may lose their jobs, insurance, and even friends. Though many jurisdictions have barred genetic discrimination, the prospect of testing positive instills fear in the minds of people. Another social stigma associated with carrying the gene of a hereditary disease may lead to feelings of isolation and mental stress. The purpose is to heighten the legal and social protections against discrimination and underline the informed decision of a person for testing. Predictive testing also raises problems connected with reproduction, for it has to be decided whether people with the gene for Huntington’s disease should or should not procreate. Some opt for prenatal tests or preimplantation genetic diagnosis and try to prevent their offspring from inheriting the gene. Others may never marry or have children at all. Such decisions do, however, reside in the domain of the personal, and such may be formed by ethical, cultural, or religious beliefs. An equally important part of genetic counseling, then, is to assist the individual and the couple in making such decisions as they stumble their way guided out of the moral and emotional minefield that decisions of this nature represent.

Psychological and Social Consequences

The psychological implications of predictive testing for Huntington’s disease can hardly be overemphasized. Such knowledge may lead to relief and empowerment but not infrequently trigger emotions of anxiety, depression, and despair.

In some cases, the positive test results offer closure, which then allows one to go forward with decisions that are empowering and personally meaningful—things like lifestyle changes, the pursuit of certain life goals, early interventions, and clinical trials. This is very often, however, too great for others to accept, and they continue to feel hopeless and frightened about their future. The mental task of trying to anticipate symptoms and knowing one’s genetic fate is very tiring.

Conversely, the presence of support systems, be it from family or friends and professionals, is important in facing the psychological effects of predictive testing. Mental health services like counseling and therapy only serve to be palliative for all persons who suffer emotionally from the latter associated with testing. Multidisciplinary support would be very relevant in encouraging and supporting an individual to undertake predictive testing even when staying on course. This would have to be done with the collaboration of many, such as genetic counselors, neurologists, psychologists, and social workers, among others.

Recent Publications on “huntingtons disease”

Find publications on relevant topics

Conclusion

Predictive testing for Huntington’s disease is a major step in the future regarding health awareness, but knowledge has complicated implications. Genetic counseling will play a very important role in sorting out the complexities so that informed support empowers aligned decisions with values and circumstances.

As genetics evolves, it will be addressing sensitively careful considerations essential. A society thoughtfully and compassionately addressing arising dilemmas works by fostering support, respecting individual autonomy, and protecting against promoting information. So it can receive the benefits while keeping potential harm at bay. Society faces great challenges with personalized understanding to progress compassionately. Though scientifically allowing a glimpse of what may come also opens sensitive questions of identity and health in the future, by careful guidance, all walk this path, finding what light each soul has.

References

  1. Schoenfeld, M., Myers, R.H., Berkman, B. and Clark, E., 1984. Potential impact of a predictive test on the gene frequency of Huntington disease. American journal of medical genetics, 18(3), pp.423-429.
  2. Tyler, A. and Harper, P.S., 1983. Attitudes of subjects at risk and their relatives towards genetic counselling in Huntington’s chorea. Journal of medical genetics, 20(3), pp.179-188.
  3. Teltscher, B.E.T.T.Y. and Polgar, S.T.E.P.H.E.N., 1981. Objective knowledge about Huntington’s disease and attitudes towards predictive tests of persons at risk. Journal of medical genetics, 18(1), pp.31-39.
  4. Folstein, S.E., Franz, M.L., Jensen, B.A., Chase, G.A. and Folstein, M.F., 1983. Conduct disorder and affective disorder among the offspring of patients with Huntington’s disease. Psychological medicine, 13(1), pp.45-52.
  5. Folstein, S.E., Abbott, M.H., Chase, G.A., Jensen, B.A. and Folstein, M.F., 1983. The association of affective disorder with Huntington’s disease in a case series and in families. Psychological medicine, 13(3), pp.537-542.
  6. Spokes, E.G., 1980. Neurochemical alterations in Huntington’s chorea: a study of post-mortem brain tissue. Brain: a journal of neurology, 103(1), pp.179-210.
  7. Kuhl, D.E., Phelps, M.E., Markham, C.H., Metter, E.J., Riege, W.H. and Winter, J., 1982. Cerebral metabolism and atrophy in Huntington’s disease determined by 18FDG and computed tomographic scan. Annals of Neurology: Official Journal of the American Neurological Association and the Child Neurology Society, 12(5), pp.425-434.
  8. Aronin, N., Cooper, P.E., Lorenz, L.J., Bird, E.D., Sagar, S.M., Leeman, S.E. and Martin, J.B., 1983. Somatostatin is increased in the basal ganglia in Huntington disease. Annals of Neurology: Official Journal of the American Neurological Association and the Child Neurology Society, 13(5), pp.519-526.
  9. Nemeroff, C.B., Youngblood, W.W., Manberg, P.J., Prange Jr, A.J. and Kizer, J.S., 1983. Regional brain concentrations of neuropeptides in Huntington’s chorea and schizophrenia. Science, 221(4614), pp.972-975.
  10. Dubbelman, T.M., Bruijne, A.W.D., Van Steveninck, J. and Bruyn, G.W., 1981. Studies on erythrocyte membranes of patients with Huntington’s disease. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 44(7), pp.570-573.

Top Experts on “huntingtons disease“