Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

INTRODUCTION Research has demonstrated the advantages and possibilities for the clinical use of artificial wombs on human preterm neonates. This technology is considered a potential alternative to the current neonatal intensive care. Either way, some ethical questions arise with this concept that are important to clarify before further technological development is taking place. METHODS A literature search was performed in Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Data was included by making use of the PRISMA flow chart. RESULTS Nineteen articles were filtered out and clustered as they entailed the same ethical implications. It is discussed how artificial wombs could be set up as valid medical research. Further, the right way to approach a subject in an artificial womb is debated, as well as the difficulties to the abortion debate. Finally, it is argued how the anticipated coming of artificial wombs could affect the doctor-parents relationship. DISCUSSION Relevant authors in the field agreed that artificial wombs should only be tested on fetuses that are not yet considered viable. Analysis has shown that the specific approach of the subject in an artificial womb largely depends on the precise meaning of ‘birth’ and ‘viability’. Therefore, these definitions require a reformulation. There are several opinions on whether abortion is permissible when ectogenesis becomes available. Although, this debate should be redone while taking all participants interests into account. Finally, it is stated that artificial wombs could be a limitation to the therapeutical freedom and autonomy of the subject’s parents.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing is becoming increasing integrated in clinical practice, and its results can create a lot of emotions and questions for patients. The test results have implications for patients as well as their family members. However, patients may have difficulties communicating these results with family members, particularly in cases where there are misconceptions about the medical implications, taboos around disease, and distant or strained family relations. RESEARCH QUESTION: While, many studies investigated the barriers of family communication of genetic information; until now, no study has been conducted in Flanders. This research seeks to understand the attitudes of people in Flanders towards sharing genetic information among family members. METHOD: A survey study was conducted to investigate attitudes towards communicating genetic information to family members. Data collection took place in four pharmacies in Flanders in the summer of 2020. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the results. RESULTS: 407 participants completed the questionnaire. Based on the analyses, gender did not impact communication preferences, while the type of genetic disease only played a small role. In contrast, the patient’s age and education level impacted communication preferences. Patients with children or a child wish have different communication preferences. An earlier discussion of genetic risk encourages communication. CONCLUSION: In general, all participants indicated that they want to be informed about their genetic risk. Most would also undergo a genetic test. Although for some groups of individuals, communication preferences are clarified in this study, it is still not fully clear what hinders people from communicating with family members about genetic diseases and risks. In addition to this study, an interview study could be more suitable in the near future to question patients about their view on barriers in communication of genetic diseases.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Background: When a patient tests positive for a genetic disease he is responsible for notifying his relatives, but this can be difficult. Most people inform relatives they are close with, usually first degree relatives, and expect a domino effect for the others with exceptions for children and elderly. Men are usually less informed than women in the family. The existing facilitators are split in feelings, psychosocial facilitators like counselling sessions and tools like letters and websites. Research question: What are facilitators of communication of genetic risk information? Three secondary endpoints were selected: attitudes of people towards breaches in confidentiality and preferences towards how and by whom genetic risk information is communicated. Methods: A quantitative study based on a survey with cases and general questions from the perspective of the relative receiving genetic information was conducted in pharmacies in West-Flanders. Results: The majority preferred to be informed by a close relative, all subgroups preferred in person. If clinicians would communicate, the GP was preferred. Child wish, younger age and high education were found facilitators, while gender had no influence. The results were inconclusive for previous appointments and treatment options. The majority agreed to using laws to facilitate communication. Conclusion: The results of child wish and high age aligned with previous literature, gender differed. The Belgian policies involving breaches of confidentiality and the patient’s responsibility for communication to distant relatives need changes in the future. The communication tools need to be expanded, because the digitalization of medicine is not followed by patients.