Author Archives: Robert Resta

by | September 19, 2010 · 4:07 PM

Let Me Into Your Grief

“In three words I can sum up everything I’ve learned about life: it goes on.”
– Robert Frost

Grief, a constant in genetic counseling, is a normal reaction to death, the loss of hopes and dreams, suffering, shattered self-images, disrupted relationships, and the other emotional fallout of genetic disease. As part of our counseling work, we try to help patients express and explore their grief so that they can heal as much as possible and move on with their lives.

 

In his 1914 poem Home Burial, Robert Frost poignantly observes – as many genetic counselors have – how grief can follow different emotional arcs in men and women. The poem is set in the indoor staircase and entry of a house, and is essentially  a dialogue between a married couple who have recently lost their firstborn child.  The loss of her son is so overwhelming to the wife, Amy, that it is beyond verbalization; life is not going on for her. Her (unnamed) husband, in her eyes, does not have the same profound sense of loss. Both are profoundly sad but their different grieving styles have created a palpable tension in their relationship. The title of the poem refers as much to the child’s grave as to the emotions that are buried in the home.

The text  is taken from Collected Poems of Robert Frost, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1930. I have added (H) and (W) to  indicate when the husband and wife are speaking, respectively. To appreciate its full depth, power, and beauty, shut your door, take a quiet break, and read it in its entirety. A few times. A well-done video about Frost’s life includes an excellent dramatization of Home Burial that would integrate nicely into a class discussion about grief. Incidentally, Robert Lee Frost, the quintessential Yankee poet, was born in San Francisco and was supposedly named after the great Southern general Robert E. Lee.

As the poem opens, the husband spots his wife at the top of the stairs where she is once again gazing out of a window. The husband climbs the stairs and demands:

(H) ‘What is it you see from up there always?—For I want to know….’

She, in her place, refused him any help….

She let him look, sure that he wouldn’t see,

Blind creature; and a while he didn’t see.

 

Eventually though he realizes that she has been staring at the grave of their child:

But at last he murmured ‘Oh’ and again, ‘Oh.’

(W)‘What is it – what?’

(H) ‘Just that I see.’

 

(W)’You don’t,’ she challenged. ‘Tell me what it is.’

(H)’But I understand; it is … the child’s mound –‘

 

The mention of their child’s grave triggers a flood of emotions for Amy:

(W)‘Don’t, don’t, don’t, don’t,’ she cried.

She withdrew,……

And turned on him with such a daunting look,

He said twice over before he knew himself:

(H)‘Can’t a man speak of his own child he’s lost?’

(W) ‘I don’t know rightly that any man can.’

As she stands ready to escape out of the house, he pleads for her help so that he can understand her better, but is rebuffed:

(H) ‘There’s something I should like to ask you dear.’

(W) ‘You don’t know how to ask it.’

(H) ‘Help me, then.’

Her fingers moved the latch for reply.

(H) ‘My words are nearly always an offence.

I don’t know how to speak of anything

So as to please you…. A man must partly give up being a man

With women-folk.’

 

Amy once again tries to leave the house:

She moved the latch a little.

(H)‘Don’t – don’t go.

Don’t carry it to someone else this time.’

 

Desperate to get through to her, he pleads:

(H) ‘Tell me about it….Let me into your grief.’

And again he cries out

(H) ‘A man can’t speak of his own child that’s dead.’

She can’t understand his ability to bury their child and get on with life, and anger and disbelief pour out:

(W) ‘You can’t because you don’t know how to speak.

If you had any feelings, you that dug

With your own hand – how could you?- his little grave;

Making the gravel leap and leap in the air,

Leap up, like that, like that, and land so lightly

And roll back down the mound beside the hole.

I thought, Who is that man? I don’t know you…..

You could sit there with the stains on your shoes

Of the fresh earth from your own baby’s grave

 

And talk about everyday concerns.

You had stood the spade up against the wall

Outside there in the entry….’

 

At this point, the husband thinks that Amy has finally aired her emotions and is ready to reconcile herself with the death of her child:

(H)‘There, you have said it all and you feel better.

Close the door.

The heart’s gone out of it: why keep it up.’…

(W) ‘You – oh, you think the talk is all. ‘

But Frost is not about to make it easy for the couple or the reader. This grief is too profound to be resolved with the bursting of Amy’s emotional dam. As the poem ends, Amy walks out the door:

(W) ‘I must go —…’

(H) ‘I’ll follow and bring you back by force. I will! —‘

 

The poem, the story, the couple’s relationship, and the reader’s desire for a happy ending are left hanging, exhausted and unresolved, on that simple dash.

2 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , , ,

by | August 15, 2010 · 8:44 PM

A DNA Day Surprise

There has been much sturm und drang lately about the ramifications of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. Depending upon your point of view, either it’s the end of the world as we know it, or it’s a door opening into the future. These opinions seem to be based on, well, opinion, rather than a careful weighing of evidence – perhaps because there is no evidence.

A recent encounter with a patient who utilized DTC testing has forced me to confront my thoughts on this issue. I am purposely avoiding mentioning the name of the company – the company does not need free advertising, and the specific company does not matter to the issues at hand. I have modified the patient’s name and some personal details to be absolutely sure that anonymity is maintained.

 

Zoe, a bright and articulate 30-something Ashkenazi Jewish woman, called me on the advice of her primary care physician. She had no specific health problems or family history concerns, but likes to keep herself educated about health matters. She maintains a healthy life style and has long been interested in learning as much as possible about her disease risks. She does not have children, but would like to start a family in the near future. She came across the website of a DTC company that happened to be offering a special deal on their genetic screen to celebrate DNA Day. So, she and her sputum took the plunge.

The results were a mish-mash of not-particularly-helpful information such as a slightly higher risk for diabetes, slightly lower risk for cardiovascular disease, wet ear wax, and curly hair (which hung plumb-straight to her shoulders). But she didn’t call me to discuss her ability to smell asparagus metabolite in urine. Instead, right there,  nestled among the results of her Measure of Intelligence and her Longevity, was a deleterious BRCA mutation.

What does this mean, she asked me over the phone? I suggested she make an appointment with me or, if she preferred, she could ask the DNA testing company if they had certified genetic counselors on staff who could work with her. The company offered her a list of genetic counselors in her area, but did not themselves employ genetic counselors.  A few days later, she was in my office.

Creature of habit that I am, I began with a pedigree, but no matter how hard I shook the family tree, the only cancer that fell out was a late onset prostate cancer in a distant relative. Not surprisingly, one side of the family contained very few females. She peppered me with questions about cancer risks, screening, and prevention. She took it all in, duly taking notes and asking appropriate questions. Although the cancer risks were concerning to her, she was reassured by the availability of options to reduce her cancer risks or to improve the chances of detecting breast cancer at an early stage. She was not ready at this stage of her life to make surgical decisions. She had alerted her family to her results, and they planned to have a family meeting after she had met with me to discuss what they would do next. In short, it went pretty much like your average BRCA Positive Informing Session. She was quite satisfied with her dealings with the DTC company, and was planning on encouraging others in her social circle to consider testing as well. I sensed no significant emotional distress beyond what you would ordinarily expect.

The lab is CLIA-approved, and out-source the BRCA Ashkenazi Panel to a well-known lab. Although the patient was concerned that sputum was not as accurate as blood, I assured her that I saw no need to repeat her testing unless she wanted independent confirmation for her own peace of mind. But this would cost her about $600, and since there was no family history of cancer, it would not be covered by her insurance. The DTC lab charged her far less than that, and in her view, she received more information for less money.

For Zoe, DTC testing was a very positive experience. She received valuable information that could very well wind up saving her life. With no family history of cancer, she would not have started breast cancer screening for nearly another decade, and would likely otherwise never have pictured a risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in her future. As an aside, I think it is a forceful example of the potential advantages to offering BRCA screening to all Ashkenazi women (yes, I recognize the possible downsides and intricacies too). It also partially counters the argument that we can tell patients more from pedigrees than we can from DNA tests.

Zoe was the ideal person to utilize DTC testing. She is bright, educated, and eager to improve her health and avoid disease. She had the financial means to pay for testing and counseling (neither of which were covered by her insurer). She is emotionally stable, and the information, while surprising to her, was not particularly upsetting to Zoe or (by her report) her family. While there could certainly be long-term psychosocial issues, my gut sense was that she was not at high risk for serious problems. Of course, one could easily imagine patients who might react very differently in this situation.

My criticisms of the experience are mostly minor. The written information provided by the lab about the implications of BRCA results was fairly minimal. I tried to contact the lab to ask technical questions, but the lab’s website does not offer a readily apparent Contact Us section. It took some digging around to find a general email address, and then it took the lab 2 days to reply to me. If labs and genetic counselors are going to work together, labs need to improve their communication with health professionals. The lab rep insisted that the results were not intended for medical purposes. But, come on, BRCA results can be a matter of life and death. DTC labs need to step up to the plate and clearly acknowledge that at least some of their results have very important implications for medical care beyond telling someone to exercise more, eat less, and hold your nose when you urinate after eating asparagus.

Zoe also learned that she is a carrier for a few potentially serious genetic diseases that could affect her reproductive decisions (which she found helpful). There was also the usual collection of “Self Evident Why Did They Bother Testing For This Stuff” traits like photic sneeze response, odor detection, pain sensitivity, etc. While it is easy to make fun of these, in spirit, the information is not very different than the type of information that couples seek from sperm and egg donors when going through assisted reproduction.

We need to report our experiences with patients like Zoe as case reports and with larger qualitative and quantitative studies. We have much to learn, and it can help inform policy decisions, patient experiences, and professional debates. We should not reject DTC testing outright; there are situations where it in fact it may be quite appropriate. Until we study the phenomenon, we have no right to form extreme opinions about it. Without information, it’s a an argument, not a debate.

Genetic counselors are sensitive to the psychosocial ramifications of genetic disease. But if we insist that everyone who has a genetic test first see a genetic counselor, are  we creating an aura of specialness and mystery about genetics that can be a factor in the development of psychosocial sequelae? Should we be setting aside genetic testing from other medical tests and treating it as SOMETHING VERY SPECIAL? Perhaps for some patients, genetic testing is not such a big deal, but if we insist that it is a big deal, we might be contributing to some of the very psychosocial problems we are looking to minimize.

I would like to hear from other genetic counselors who have worked with patients who have gone through DTC testing – the good, the bad, and the ugly.

9 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , , ,

by | July 28, 2010 · 11:52 PM

Facts, Figures and Fictions in Genetic Counseling

Genetic counselors have a love/hate relationship with numbers. We sometimes sniff with contempt at numbers , and nobly proclaim that psychosocial issues are the real business of genetic counseling. On the other hand, patients and referring physicians demand concrete answers, so we spend an inordinate amount of time  discussing statistics and risk figures. And, truth be told, hard data is less complicated to address than complex psychological issues. With numbers, as Casey Stengel used to say, “You can look it up” – but counseling requires us to use our skills to fly by the seat of our pants.

This focus on numbers has led to the particularly absurd practice of evaluating the effectiveness of genetic counseling  by measuring accuracy of patient recall.  Not surprisingly, patients often demonstrate poor recall of any but the simplest facts. Surely by now we have learned that patients are not calculating machines! Whatever information we provide passes through patients’ complicated emotional, neurobiological, and cultural filters and out the other end comes a jumbled understanding of technical information that plays out in a complex psychosocial milieu.  Yet despite their fairly consistent inability to remember much of what we tell them, patients usually make good decisions. Many researchers are at last questioning the validity of  using recall to measure effectiveness – it’s a counseling session, not a final exam, for chrissakes’ almighty.

I am relieved that researchers are developing alternative ways of evaluating genetic counseling. What intrigues me  about numbers, though, is a question that almost no researcher has asked – “Why do genetic counselors (or any health professional) choose to use a certain set of numbers when counseling patients?” It’s a given that all research studies are flawed, and therefore the numbers generated by studies are flawed, some tragically so. I would like to believe that we carefully evaluate and compare studies, and choose those with the soundest methodologies and largest sample sizes to generate risk figures for use in genetic counseling. But I am not convinced this is always the case. Let me illustrate with 3 common examples from genetic counseling practice.

1) The single most widely cited genetic counseling statistic – for at least  30 years – is the mythical 0.5% miscarriage rate of amniocentesis. This number is well enshrined in text books, journal articles, and our collective memory. It’s usually presented to patients, with some variation, as “Amnocentesis has a half-percent miscarriage rate.” This may then be followed by a statement like  “But at our center, the miscarriage rate is X” (inevitably some number lower than 0.5%), or  perhaps “More recent studies have shown a lower rate.” These “statements of fact”  are so incorrect that they border on falsehoods. First off, as I have pointed out (ad nauseum, to some) no study has ever shown a 0.5% miscarriage, period, end of story. Second, no individual center or physician knows their own miscarriage rate. The only way to determine a center’s or individual physician’s pregnancy loss rate is through a randomized controlled study within a center. This requires sample sizes – and raises ethical issues – well beyond the means of even the largest and best financed clinics. In the absence of such a study, providing a center- or physician-specific risk is biased guesswork at best, and fraudulent deception at worst. Third, while some recent studies have shown low rates of fetal loss, the very first multi-institutional US study of amniocentesis published in 1976 found no statistically significant difference in the loss rate between the amnio/no amnio groups.  The most honest and accurate thing you could say to patients is”Studies have shown that amniocentesis has a loss rate anywhere from no increased risk on up to about 1%. There is no reason to believe that this center’s loss rate is different than published data, although we lack the statistical evidence from our own center to prove that assertion”. How can you justify saying anything other than that?

2) Maternal serum screening for aneuploidy is a mainstay of patient referrals to genetic counselors. Parents are put through the emotional ringer, and make life-changing decisions based on the results of these tests. The aneuploidy risk is usually stated as a precise-sounding fraction, e.g. 1/127.  To soften the blow, we may re-state it as a “barely 1%”, or re-frame it as more than a 99% chance that the fetus does not have an aneuploidy. But no matter how you say it, the statistic itself still carries an air of truth and authority, etched in stone and handed down to us  from the Lab Gods. Yet  a single blood sample from one patient analyzed in different labs can result in very, very different aneuploidy risks from each lab. So which number is right? Which lab do we swear by and why?

3) In cancer counseling, it is common practice to assess the likelihood of carrying a BRCA or other gene mutation by using one of the many risk assessment models – BRCAPro, FHAT, PAT, BOADICEA, etc. While each model has its strengths and weaknesses, it is pretty clear that the same family, when assessed by multiple models, can wind up with very different BRCA carrier probabilities. And although the adherents, er, uh, I mean, supporters of a particular model will tout its strengths, when it comes down to it, all models perform about the same, and the models usually perform extra poorly at the upper and lower risk thresholds. Why use one number over the other? In fact, why use any number at all (other than for research purposes)?

I suspect that which numbers we use tells us more about ourselves than about any absolute or approximate reality. I think it also makes us  very uncomfortable when the pillars of truth are found to be structurally unsound; we are not comfortable “going there.” Do we use a particular set of numbers because that’s what our bosses told us to do? Because that’s what we learned in school? Because we just read an article by some respected and clever researcher, so we assume the numbers he or she uses must be pretty good? Are there deeper and subtler reasons? For example, I have argued that 0ur imperfect collective memory of the risks of amniocentesis has allowed us to construct a more palatable reason for offering amniocentesis at age 35,  a justification based on a semi-fictional medical risk/benefit assessment rather than based on the more realistic reason of economic gains of preventing births of babies with Down syndrome.

Why do you think you use the numbers you do? Share your thoughts on this, and let’s get a lively debate going.

10 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , , ,

by | June 14, 2010 · 10:52 PM

GeeKnowType – The Unique Gene Boutique

“Know thyself,” said Socrates. We at GeeKnowType agree – everyone should have access to the personal knowledge hidden deep inside their DNA. But not everyone needs one of those pesky certified genetic “specialists” to guide them through the maze of genetic testing. Even if you don’t fully grasp the subtleties of germline mosaicism or imprinting, you have a fundamental right to learn self-evident truths about yourself.

GeeKnowType, the leading on-line gene boutique, will unlock the treasure chest of your DNA. Discover your innermost desires, dreams, and destinies – so secret that, until now, even you were unaware of them.

With its focus on nonsense mutations, our patented SybilChip® technology will help you realize your full genetic potential. Simply send us a small sample of your brain tissue*, which you can obtain on your own with our free easy to use home neurobiopsy kit. Your confidential genetic profile can be posted on your Facebook wall, im’d to your favorite chatroom, or downloaded to your smartphone.

Join the millions of others who have taken advantage of the latest discoveries in the science of human genetics to  improve their personal, social, and sexual lives with GeeKnowType – the DNA test for people who want to be in the know.

Here is a sample of some of our most popular personalized genomic products:

M-eye Color©: Everyone thinks your eyes are brown, but you swear they are hazel. Who’s right? Only your eye color genes know for sure.

SwitchHitter©: Am I right-handed or left-handed? Do I have situs inversus or just a poor sense of direction? With the powerful awareness of your genetic handedness, your cilia will always beat in the right direction.

MyGeneColor©: What is your favorite color? Cerulean? Or is it really a cool shade of pinky-purple? Busy people don’t have time to recall these details. No worry – MyGeneColor will find out for you. You will never again be at a loss, whether you are painting your walls or painting your nails.

RightWeigh©: Your scale says you are overweight, but you know you cannot weigh that much. In fact, research has shown that scales tell us more about our parentage than our eating habits. With your true genetic weight, you will no longer be a slave to unreliable scales that invariably add pounds to your real weight. Say good riddance to diet and exercise!

WhichWay©: Not sure if your sexual preference runs to men, women, or both? Ask your genes and they will tell. WARNING: Not recommended for members of the US Armed Forces.

GeneSequins©: How chic is your fashion sense? The Human Genome Project has proven that your Hip Quotient is genetically determined. Don’t fret about a thoroughly embarrassing surprise visit from Stacy and Clinton! We recommend that GeneSequins be run along with our RightWeigh and MyGeneColor products to give you a complete picture of your personal style.

WellRead©: How do you know which authors you like? More importantly, which ones do you actually understand? Should you be reading The New Yorker or People, James Bond or James Joyce?  Let us read your genes so you can read genetically appropriate literature – and save money on unnecessary magazine subscriptions.

MyType or WildType©: Fed up with online dating services that set you up with a string of losers? Our DNA matching service will help you find your genetic soulmate….Oh, wait, never mind. We will have to cancel this test. Some other company beat us to the punch on this one.

Don’t see a genetic test that meets your needs? Our specially trained staff will help you design a personalized genetic profile that will tell you anything that you want to hear.

* – Minors under the age of 18 – please check with your parents before sending in your brain sample.

12 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , ,

by | May 24, 2010 · 10:50 PM

Whither GeneTests?

Well, it looks like it may be the end of the line for GeneTests, the widely used clinical genetics website. On March 18, NIH announced that it will develop the Genetic Testing Registry (GTR) “an online resource that will provide a centralized location for test developers and manufacturers to voluntarily submit test information such as indications for use, validity data, and evidence of the test’s usefulness” (this announcement was previously mentioned on the NSGC Public Policy blog). The registry will be under the purview of the Office of the Director of the NIH and hosted by the National Library of Medicine (NLM). Essentially, GTR will replace GeneTests. No timeline has been provided for when this transition will occur, but most likely will take place in 2011.

The driving forces behind GTR are NIH Director Francis Collins and his chief of staff Kathy Hudson, both of whom are well known and admired by the genetics community. GTR is still in the design phase but Hudson “hopes that it will be more comprehensive than GeneTests and more integrated into other NCBI resources.” The Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society (SACGHS)  recommended the creation of a mandatory genetic testing registry in 2008.  Although the initial plan was to make the registry mandatory, NIH ultimately decided it did not have the authority to do so. NIH plans a large overlap between GTR’s launch and the phasing out of GeneTests to minimize the impact on users. NIH will be requesting public suggestions about the development of GTR in the near future, although the GTR website currently allows input.

Dr. Bonnie Pagon, the director of GeneTests, and her staff were taken somewhat by surprise by the NIH announcement. So far, her detailed input into the development of GTR has not been sought.  The Clinic Directory and GeneReviews modules will not be part of the GTR. NIH claims that these modules will continue to be supported although no explicit plan has been made public.

GeneTests, funded primarily by NIH through the NLM, has served the clinical genetics community since 1993 (when it was called Helix and access was by telephone/fax inquiry!). Under the guidance of Dr. Pagon and a small band of dedicated genetic counselors and support staff, GeneTests has grown to include listings for tests for some 2000 genetic diseases offered by 600 laboratories, concise and highly readable summaries of more than 500 genetic conditions, patient resources, and the location of national and international genetics clinics. GeneTests greatest strengths are its ease of use, seamless interface of functions, highly readable clinical summaries, and a laser sharp focus on the clinical community. GeneTests has remained strictly non-profit –  laboratories and clinics do not pay fees to be listed nor are authors reimbursed for their contributions to GeneReviews. GeneTests is the single most valuable clinical website in the daily practice of genetic medicine, across the US and globally.

This is an opportunity for NIH to enhance an already excellent service, and I look forward to further improvements. On the other hand, there is the possibility of a disconnect between the vision of the NIH, a large governmental research institution, and the daily needs of the medical genetics community. For example, other NIH supported websites such as OMIM and Entrez Gene are fine resources, but have limited usefulness in the clinic, are sometimes awkward to use, and OMIM’s clinical summaries are clearly not up to the level of GeneReviews.

In order to make sure that GTR is a useful resource for clinicians and other users, I offer these suggestions:

• GTR should build upon the existing GeneTests base. It may need some tweaking, but it does not need to be deconstructed and reconstructed. GeneReviews and the Clinic Directory are critical components that should be maintained and updated primarily by the clinical genetics community. GeneTests strengths stem from the experience of astute clinicians like Dr. Pagon,  genetic counselor Cindy Dolan, MS, CGC, and others. I have deep respect for NIH staff, but the world view and needs of elite researchers will often differ from community medical providers.

• GTR should have an advisory board that includes several genetic counselors, medical geneticists, and other users from outside of NIH.

• The staff of GeneTests, with 17 years of experience, needs to be an integral part of the transition. Individual GeneTests staff may eventually choose other career paths, but NIH staff needs to be mentored by

these savvy veterans.

• Laboratories will be entering their own information into the registry. Such a system strikes me as ripe for potential abuse. If we have learned nothing else from the recent economic crisis, we at least must recognize that the foxes should not be feeding the hens.

• We genetic counselors and medical geneticists absolutely must provide input into the development of the GTR site and the maintenance of GeneReviews and the Clinic Directory. Although organizations like NSGC and ACMG can provide important policy input, this needs to be a grassroots effort by clinicians to make their needs known.

• NIH must be fully open to modifying its plans for these resources based on clinician input.

• NIH is planning a request for information from the public in the near future, but have asked that input be delayed until NIH provides specifics. However, I think we should begin to provide our input now so that we can help shape the questions and issues.

• The contributions of GeneTests to the development of GTR should be fully and clearly acknowledged.

GTR has the potential to be a helpful and useful resource for the genetics community and the public. But I am concerned that because the registry is such a huge undertaking, GeneReviews and the other components of GeneTests will take a backseat to the GTR, and may even fall by the wayside. This would be an enormous loss.

What are your thoughts?

3 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , ,

by | April 11, 2010 · 8:55 PM

The Great Genetic Counseling Divorce of 1992: A Historical Perspective On Change In The Genetic Counseling Profession

The advent of online genetic testing has spurred thoughtful and passionate debate  about the best way to deliver genetic counseling services. It is a polarizing issue with good arguments on both sides. The discussion recalls events that played out nearly twenty years ago – events that were critical to the development of the genetic counseling profession. Counselors young and old have much to learn by re-visiting this history.

In 1992, genetic counselors and medical geneticists were intertwined like the strands of a double helix. Most genetic counselors worked closely with medical geneticists. Even prenatal counselors often worked with obstetricians who were also board-certified medical geneticists. For the previous decade, professional certification of genetic counselors and medical geneticists had been overseen by the American Board of Medical Genetics (ABMG).

In 1991, ABMG petitioned the American Board of  Medical Specialties (ABMS) for the creation of an American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG).  Medical geneticists had much to gain in prestige and reimbursement by joining ABMS. ABMS agreed, with one huge provision – only doctorate level professionals could be accredited, effectively excluding genetic counselors from the deal. It felt like we were being sold out for a fistful of dollars.  How could we exist without the support of medical geneticists? Remember, this was well before the availability of other employment opportunities for genetic counselors that we now take for granted, such as in oncology, neurology, cardiology, or DNA testing laboratories. It appeared to be the end of the genetic counseling world as we knew it.

ABMG by-laws required a membership vote, and 2/3 approval from the membership was necessary for the motion to pass. Because genetic counselors made up about 40% of ABMG membership,

a united block of genetic counselors could stop the restructuring. Strong feelings on both sides made for tense moments. Genetic counselors were at odds with medical geneticists, and sometimes even with other genetic counselors. Professional relationships withered from the heated arguments. Both sides were armed with lawyers. Assets needed to be divided. It was not pretty (although the NSGC listserv is a wonderful resource, I am half-relieved it was not operating in 1992). Even now, I suspect this issue still raises ghosts of bad feelings, and some broken friendships have never healed.

When the vote finally came in 1992, ABMG membership approved joining ABMS, 977 in favor and 200 against. Fortunately, wiser heads prevailed. Ed Kloza, Ann Walker, and a few other unsung heroes negotiated a separation deal with ABMG and guided us through the birthing pains of establishing a new professional identity.

We felt like teenagers who had been kicked out of the house. Maybe our parents didn’t want us, but now we could be independent and grow up on our own. We were young and bright, with a bit of drag strip courage and a world of potential in front of us. Many genetic counselors continued to work in traditional settings and maintained close relationships with medical geneticists. But, freed from the bonds that tied us to medical geneticists, we were captain of our own ship, ready to set sail on uncharted professional seas.

The American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) was incorporated in February, 1993. ABGC and NSGC are now firmly established as critical leadership organizations for genetic counselors. New employment opportunities unfolded like the wings of a butterfly emerging from a cocoon. The genetic counseling profession is now entrenched in the daily practice of medicine, and our services are sought by many medical specialties. The separation of genetic counselors from ABMG proved to be the best thing

that ever happened to North American genetic counselors.

Medical geneticists on the other hand, were more cautious. I suspect that they were still caught up in the traditional model of medical genetics service delivery and did not respond as quickly to changes in genetic technology. They are just now starting to catch up with genetic counselors in establishing working relationships beyond pediatrics and obstetrics.

Here we are in 2010 with new service models presenting themselves. As it was in 1992, our profession is torn by these issues. I do not know what the right answer is. But opportunity is knocking and asking us to take another journey with unfamiliar travelers. We can head down this uncertain path – or we can be left standing at the door.

For more on the ABMG restructuring, see:

“ABGC incorporates” Perspectives in Genetic Counseling 1993;15(1):1

Gettig B “Restructuring of ABMG: NSGC to move toward healing; vision” Perspectives in Genetic Counseling 1992/3;14(4):3

Epstein CR “Editorial: Organized Medical Genetics at a crossroad” American Journal of Human Genetics 1992;41:231-4

Heimler A, Benkendorf J, Gettig E, Reich S, Schmerler S, Travers H “Opinion: American Board of Medical Genetics restructuring: make an informed decision” American Journal of Human Genetics 1992; 51:v-viii

Kloza EM “ABMS report…evaluating the counselors’ status” Perspectives in Genetic Counseling 1992;14(1):7

Restructuring Committee “Review and update of ABMG status” Perspectives in Genetic Counseling 1992;14(2):1

8 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | March 2, 2010 · 4:30 PM

Saqqaq Confidential

An article in a recent issue of the journal Nature by a Danish-led international research team reported genomic sequencing of 4,000 year old permafrost-preserved human hair tufts from a man who belonged to the Arctic Saqqaq culture. The authors obtained remarkable information about the genetic constitution of Inuk – as he was named by the researchers, from the Inuit word for “person” – that provided insights into the genetic and migratory history of circumpolar populations.

The geneticist in me was fascinated by this paper. The authors suggest that the samples may have been the clipped hair that fell during a haircut. They calculated an admittedly speculative inbreeding co-efficient of 0.06, compatible with several ancestry scenarios, one of which is a first cousin mating. More than 300,000 SNPs provided information about his phenotypic traits such as hair color and earwax type but also susceptibility to diabetes, obesity, hypertension, Alzheimer disease, nicotine dependence, parkinsonism, and alcoholism. It’s the kind of research that makes you say “Gee whiz, it’s amazing what scientists can do.”

And then the nagging voice of my internal genetic counselor began pestering me with the questions “Do we have a right to know about this man’s genetic disease susceptibility? When does science trump a person’s right to privacy?”

I appreciate the scientific value of this information. There is no reason to believe that Inuk’s genetic information could be directly linked to his descendants.  Thus, no living person experienced psychological harm or a violation of privacy. One might even argue – with some Western hubris – that this research enhanced Inuk’s dignity since it contributed to our understanding of his people and culture.

On the other hand, we have clear-cut social and legal restrictions on privacy of medical information about living people. Some of what we learned about Inuk, such as his hair color or tooth shape, would have been obvious to his contemporaries and therefore does not compromise his privacy. However, Inuk’s genetic susceptibility to various diseases would not have been known by his coevals. Where do we draw the privacy line for deceased individuals?  Every culture has its taboos – what kind of personal information was considered privileged and confidential in Saqqaq culture?

It’s one thing when Beethoven asked his physician to study his body after death and to share the knowledge of his illness with the world or when the great English chemist John Dalton willed his color-blind eyes to science to advance the scientific understanding of deuteranopia. But would we have second thoughts about sharing the genetic disease susceptibilities of historically important people who may not have given such permission, like George Washington, Mark Twain, or Winston Churchill? What about celebrities like Michael Jackson? Is Inuk’s private information publicly available because of his anonymity or, more uncomfortably, because he was a member of a non-Western extinct culture?

The paper compared Inuk’s results with the DNA of Craig Venter and James Watson, but the latter two have intentionally made their genetic information widely available. Are DNA studies of the dead any different than studying disinterred bones for  clues to disease and biology? How do scientists distinguish themselves from resurrectionists and distance their practice from cranioklepty?  Is studying the DNA of the dead the scientific equivalent of sacra furta (the theft of saintly relics that was unofficially condoned by the Medieval Catholic Church)? How do we balance human dignity with the quest for scientific knowledge?

Should we allow public reporting of aggregate data on populations but only allow researchers with a legitimate scientific interest access to private information on a specific individual? Or are we contributing to the mythological aura surrounding DNA by insisting that genetic information is somehow more special and privileged than any other information about a person? After all, we live in a world shark-frenzied for intimate details about the sexual and personal lives of celebrities. DNA sequencing seems almost harmless in comparison.

I know, I know. I’ve posed many questions and no answers. But I am having a hard time answering them, so I am interested in what you think.

Leave a comment

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , , , ,

by | February 1, 2010 · 10:25 PM

Counsyl, Counselors, and Counseling

Recent discussion on the NSGC listserv – and an article in the NY Times – has centered on the policies of Counsyl, a private lab that offers carrier genetic testing for more than 100 mendelian disorders.  Specimens can be submitted to the lab directly by patients, without a healthcare provider’s signature – and therein lies the rub, at least for genetic counselors.

For the moment I want to set aside discussion about the appropriateness of testing without counseling, accusations of corporate eugenics, and the ethics of direct to consumer marketing. To be sure, there are valid points to be made by both sides on these weighty issues. Instead, though, I want to critique the company’s website, and offer suggestions for resolving some of the problems surrounding on-line genetic testing.

On the surface, the website seems benign enough. The home page prominently displays the company’s values, all of which would meet genetic counselors’ approval.  Counsyl recommends speaking to a licensed genetic counselor or other qualified professional either before or after testing, with on-line links to locate one. Virtually all of the conditions they test for are serious, with none of the trivial traits like earwax type and eye color that some labs screen for. The site provides information and resources about the diseases (most of which challenge my store of clinical genetics knowledge). The test is reasonably priced and uses saliva rather than blood.The company offers financial aid for those who cannot afford testing, and offers to work with non-profit groups and NGOs.

But for all its dispassionate presentation of numbers and information, the website subtly manipulates consumers and could play on their fears and guilt. Let me highlight a few of my areas of concern; you can probably find a few more on your own.

  1. “Each year millions of healthy parents are taken by surprise when their children are born with life threatening disorders” the site proclaims.That may be true globally, but most readers will use their own country as a frame of reference. Of the 4 million plus babies born in the US, the number born with the tested conditions is probably in the thousands. Certainly a sizeable number, but several orders of magnitude less than the website proclaims.
  2. For all diseases, the site provides data on carrier frequency but not disease frequency. 1/28 – the cystic fibrosis (CF) carrier frequency – sounds a lot scarier than the disease frequency  of 1/2300, and far more frightening than telling an untested couple they have a 99.9% of NOT having a child with CF.
  3. Hispanic/Latinos are said to be at increased risk of having a child with CF: “Two diseases are particularly prevalent among Hispanics: sickle cell disease and cystic fibrosis.” Yet the CF carrier rate cited for this population is 1/46, which is roughly half the carrier rate of Northern/Western Europeans.
  4. Of course, what parent would not be tested for a condition that can be cured or treated? The company claims that the testing can be “life-saving” and that “many treatment options exist” – then offers the following treatment options: preimplantation genetic diagnosis, sperm/egg donors, mental preparation, watchful waiting, and early childhood treatment.  Four out of five of these options have nothing do with treatment. And the vast majority of the diseases in question have no cure; treatment is usually symptomatic not preventative. Although PGD and sperm/egg donation is an option for a few couples, prevention really means abortion of affected fetuses. I could not find the word abortion anywhere on the site, though I did see a reference to “reproductive intervention.”
  5. The test is said to be 99.9% accurate. It would be more appropriate to say that the test is 99.9% accurate for the specific mutations that are being assayed. However, I suspect that samples are not being screened for all mutations at these disease loci, just the most common (I could not find an answer to this on the website).
  6. The website does not indicate that many newborns are already being screened for some of these conditions. And in the  site’s discussion of thalassemia, there is no mention that virtually all pregnant women are already screened reasonably effectively and cheaply for carrier status of this disorder with a CBC at their first prenatal visit.

I do not mean to imply that Counsyl is an evil or sub-standard laboratory. They are likely very sincere and dedicated in their desire to help people. Being a for-profit lab, though, their marketing needs to be aimed at, among other things, maximizing income.

We can sit around and tut-tut about on-line genetic testing. But like it or not, we are probably going to have to learn to live with some form of it. I therefore offer two suggestions to help us and our patients approriately utilize testing resources.

First, the National Society of Genetic Counselors should form a Laboratory Advisory Committee. For a fee, this committee would review a lab’s website and policies. If the lab passes muster, the lab can proclaim itself “NSGC Approved”. This could generate income for the NSGC, and allow us all to feel more comfortable if patients utilize approved sites. Obviously, the potential for conflict of interest and legal vulnerability is enormous, but this is a difficult – not an insurmountable – problem.

Secondly, genetic counselors need to conduct research to determine the validity of our concerns about on line testing and direct to consumer marketing. Is the medical and psychosocial harm as great as we expect? Some large studies such as the Scripps Genomics Health Initiative are under way, but it will be 15-20 years before this study is complete.  No doubt each of us can provide anecdotes that support our contentions, but these prove nothing. We need to collect data, figure out what it is telling us, and move forward from there.

We can point our fingers at on-line testing – or we can use our fingers to point the way.

__________________________________________

Post: See Laura Hercher’s take on the topic here.

9 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , , , ,

by | January 26, 2010 · 12:03 AM

Testing Your Limits

We genetic counselors take great pride in our role as patient advocates. Everyone is equally deserving of our best professional skills and unbiased support. Rich, poor, immigrant, homeless, transgender, disabled, non-English speaking …. we like to think that none of it makes any difference. We give them all our best non-directive shot.

On occasion, though, we encounter a patient who compromises our desire and ability to provide unbiased, empathic care. This may stem from subtle counter-transference issues, like the patient who evokes your ex-spouse or a client who is overly demanding and obnoxious. With professional growth and supervision, we can learn to deal with such situations.

But eventually you find yourself with a patient who makes you stop and say to yourself “You know, this one is crawling under my skin. I’m not sure I can be a good genetic counselor for this person.” Let me give a (hypothetical) example of patients who might evoke such deep feelings.

Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the two leaders of al-Qaeda, are arguably America’s greatest and most reviled enemies. Both men also have families. One of bin Laden’s 22 children, Abdul Rahman, was born with hydrocephalus (1/22 is approximately equal to the semi-mythical 3% risk we are so fond of quoting to our patients; congenital anomalies blindly cross all religious and ethnic boundaries). bin Laden flew his son to the UK for treatment, but declined a shunt, and instead chose to treat him with honey, a common folk remedy in the Arabic world.  al-Zawahiri ‘s fifth daughter, Aisha, had Down syndrome, born after nearly 20 years of marriage (the effects of advancing maternal age also are oblivious to culture and creed). Aisha died at age 4 of exposure to freezing temperatures the same night her mother was killed in an air raid as the family fled Afghanistan during the early days of the war.

What if one day you walked into your office and there sat either bin Laden or al-Zawahiri, seeking your clinical help? Could you dispassionately provide your best genetic counseling skills to these men? I, for one, would have a hard time. But our ethical system only works when it works for everyone, not when it is selectively applied.  Lawyers know this well, and that is why they defend even the most evil criminals.

The example is admittedly extreme and, not least of all, unlikely.  However, the information about bin Laden’s and al-Zawahiri’s families is neither fictional nor a wild Internet rumor; it is taken from The Looming Tower, Larry Wright’s superb Pulitzer winning book about the rise of al-Qaeda. I use the example to illustrate the point that we all have our limits, but those limits may be very different for each of us.

Which patients challenge your ability to provide genetic counseling? Would you be deluding yourself if you believed that your ability to engage all patients knows no limits? I encourage you to leave comments below – I am interested in hearing your thoughts and experiences.

8 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , ,

by | November 29, 2009 · 5:59 PM

A Ghost From Christmas Past (Gate B4)

 

Not uncommonly we run into our patients outside of the workplace – in supermarkets, restaurants, and the like. When this happens, patients are usually friendly and chatter pleasantly while we frantically try to recall their names and what had brought them to our clinics. It can even be amusing, like the time my (then) 4 year old daughter and I were in the dressing room of the community swimming pool, buck naked, when the guy next to me stared at me for a bit, then exclaimed “Hey – I recognize you. You’re Bob Resta. You called us with some great news the other day. I can’t wait to tell my wife I saw you.”

Sometimes, though, these chance encounters are awkward and complicated.

It was just before Christmas in the late 1990s. We were at the airport to pick up my daughter who was returning home after having finished her first semester at college . Watching your child become a young adult and start life’s journey evokes many conflicting emotions, but after four months apart mostly you are excited to see your kid again.

In the eyes of our offspring, parents are capable of the most acutely appalling acts that are a constant threat to a teen’s cool quotient. Once we recognize this, it becomes parents’  – well, mostly fathers’ –  life mission to engage in embarrassing public behaviors, in loving payback for their children’s you-are-so-geeky-old and you-are-not-related-to-me attitudes toward their hopelessly unhip elders. Lest my daughter forget what she had escaped from four months earlier,  we decided to greet her at the airport wearing low-budget reindeer antlers resplendent with miniature holiday decorations.

This was a more naive time when you could still greet passengers at the gate and you weren’t confined to waiting behind the luggage carousels far from where loved ones have exited their planes. Our excitement grew when the PA announced her flight’s arrival at Gate B4, antlers perched on our heads in full kitschy splendor, grins locked on our faces in anticipation of her eye-rolling horror.

The first passengers emerged at the gate, wearing a slightly confused look as their eyes and brains adjusted from the cruelly close horizon of the seatbacks in front of them to the hustle and bustle of a busy airport. I was scanning for my daughter among the exiting passengers when the foremost one approached me. “You’re Bob Resta” she said in a flat, low tone tinged with grief at its edges. “Last Christmas you called me with the most devastating news of my life. I will never forget your voice or what you said to me.” At a loss for words, I looked at her, unable to remember anything about her. She paused for a moment, looked a little longer into my eyes,  and then continued on her way.

Amid the background airport din, I could barely make out Joni Mitchell’s melancholy voice, “I wish I had a river /I could skate away on.” Shell-shock replaced my smile. One of my reindeer antlers drooped and its miniature candy cane decoration dangled helplessly. My gaze returned to the departing passengers but I lost track of why I was waiting there.

 

Continue reading →

2 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , ,