Abstract 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. Conclusion Results from this study are relevant for counseling and policy development.

Background 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. Discussion 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. Conclusion 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.

In a previous study we found that parents of children with developmental delay (DD) favoured acceptance of unsolicited findings (UFs) for medically actionable conditions in childhood, but that preferences diverged for UFs with no medical actionability, or only in adulthood, and regarding carrier status. Sometimes the child's future autonomy formed a reason for withholding UFs for the present, despite an unfavourable prognosis concerning the child's cognitive capabilities. This might be different for children undergoing whole exome sequencing (WES) for reasons other than DD and who are expected to exert future autonomy. This is the focus of the current study. We conducted nine qualitative, semi-structured interviews with parents of children, ages <1-15, after consenting to WES, but prior to feedback of results, and with three adolescent children. Several parents wished to receive any information that might in whatever way be relevant to the health and well-being of their child, and to a lesser extent wished the inclusion of information about non-actionable disorders and information concerning carrier status of autosomal recessive disorders. Although parents understood the rationale behind the centre's UFs disclosure policy, they also felt that they needed this information in order to be able to exert their parental responsibility and take good care of a child still dependent on them. Parents reason from their notion of parental responsibility but are also inclined to take adolescent children's preferences seriously and acknowledge the child's incipient autonomy as a ground for granting an increasing degree of self-determination on the road to adulthood.

The emergence of genomics, both in clinical care and research, raises a number of ethical questions. One of the key challenges is how to handle unsolicited or secondary findings. While the responsible management of unsolicited findings (UFs) remains a controversial and highly debated topic in adults, this challenge becomes increasingly complex in the case of children. In this chapter, potential conflicts between protecting the values of parents' and children's autonomy and their wellbeing are described and evaluated. It is argued that on a reasonable conception of how these values should be promoted, they may not necessarily be in conflict with one another. This insight is used to outline a set of proposals for addressing pediatric UFs in clinical practice.

The introduction of novel diagnostic techniques in clinical domains such as genomics and radiology has led to a rich ethical debate on how to handle unsolicited findings that result from these innovations. Yet while unsolicited findings arise in both genomics and radiology, most of the relevant literature to date has tended to focus on only one of these domains. In this article, we synthesize and critically assess similarities and differences between "scanning the body" and "sequencing the genome" from an ethical perspective. After briefly describing the novel diagnostic contexts leading to unsolicited findings, we synthesize and reflect on six core ethical issues that relate to both specialties: terminology; benefits and risks; autonomy; disclosure of unsolicited findings to children; uncertainty; and filters and routine screening. We identify ethical rationales that pertain to both fields and may contribute to more ethically sound policies. Considerations of preserving public trust and ensuring that people perceive healthcare policies as fair also support the need for a combined debate.

Parents' preferences for unsolicited findings (UFs) from diagnostic whole-exome sequencing (WES) for their children remain largely unexplored. Our aim was to gain insight into parental considerations favoring acceptance/decline of UFs pertaining to their child. We conducted 20 qualitative, semistructured interviews with parents (n=34) of children with a developmental delay, aged <1 to 17 years, after consenting to WES, but before feedback of results. Key findings from our study were that all parents favored acceptance of UFs for medically actionable conditions in childhood, but that preferences and considerations diverged for UFs with no medical actionability, or only in adulthood, and regarding carrier-status. Sometimes non-medical utility considerations (considerations of usefulness of knowing UFs, not rooted in (preventive) medical treatment or controls) were given in favor of disclosure of UFs. Sometimes the child's future autonomy formed a reason to withhold UFs at present, despite an unfavorable prognosis concerning the child's cognitive capabilities. Some parents only preferred receiving UFs if these findings were directly related to their reasons for seeking a diagnosis. These findings are essential for developing morally responsible policy and for counseling. Further research should focus on whether considerations of non-medical utility alone can justify disclosure of UFs and whether reasons for seeking a diagnosis place further constraints on what UFs may be returned/withheld. How parents can be aided in contemplating different scenarios regarding their child's future development also deserves further inquiry.

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Current thinking on the development of molecular microbial characterisation techniques in public health focuses mainly on operational issues that need to be resolved before incorporation into daily practice can take place. Notwithstanding the importance of these operational challenges, it is also essential to formulate conditions under which such microbial characterisation methods can be used from an ethical perspective. The potential ability of molecular techniques to show relational patterns between individuals with more certainty brings a new sense of urgency to already difficult ethical issues associated with privacy, consent and a moral obligation to avoid spreading a disease. It is therefore important that professionals reflect on the ethical implications of using these techniques in outbreak management, in order to be able to formulate the conditions under which they may be applied in public health practice.

Massively parallel sequencing techniques, such as whole exome sequencing and whole genome sequencing map a large portion of a person’s DNA all at once. This stands in sharp contrast to previous genetic techniques that only analyze single or small groups of genes. In a clinical context this makes it is possible to reach a diagnosis much faster and cost-effective. However, the fact that these technologies look at such a large portion of a person’s DNA, is not only where the advantages come from, but also where certain moral questions arise. As a result of the vast amount of data that is collected, there is always a possibility of revealing incidental findings that can have far-reaching consequences for patients’ and their families. Such findings include disease-causing variants for various kinds of disorders with: differing symptoms; varying gradations of (preventive) medical “actionability” or even no medical treatment options; and ages of manifestation (child- versus adult-onset). Relatives can have different interests in knowing or not knowing such information that may conflict with one another. Especially in child cases, questions concerning incidental findings become even more complex, since children are not able to make decisions for themselves and parents must decide for their child. Currently there is much divergence in how informed consent procedures and return of incidental results policies ought to be structured. This dissertation presents findings from qualitative research regarding the experiences of parents and children for making choices about sequencing and possible incidental findings. These results are combined with ethical reflection to devise concrete policy recommendations so that the use of sequencing techniques is morally responsible.