The objective of this study is to review ethical and clinical guidelines and position papers concerning the presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing of minors. The databases Medline, Philosopher's Index, Biological Abstracts, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched using keywords relating to the presymptomatic and predictive testing of children. We also searched the websites of the national bioethics committees indexed on the websites of World Health Organization (WHO) and the German Reference Centre for Ethics in the Life Sciences, the websites of the Human Genetics Societies of various nations indexed on the website of the International Federation of Human Genetics Societies and related links and the national medical associations indexed on the website of the World Medical Association. We retrieved 27 different papers dealing with guidelines or position papers that fulfilled our search criteria. They encompassed the period 1991-2005 and originated from 31 different organizations. The main justification for presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing was the direct benefit to the minor through either medical intervention or preventive measures. If there were no urgent medical reasons, all guidelines recommend postponing testing until the child could consent to testing as a competent adolescent or as an adult. Ambiguity existed for childhood-onset disorders for which preventive or therapeutic measures are not available and for the timing of testing for childhood-onset disorders. Although the guidelines covering presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing of minors agree strongly that medical benefit is the main justification for testing, a lack of consensus remains in the case of childhood-onset disorders for which preventive or therapeutic measures are not available.

The combination of the issue of return of individual genetic results/incidental findings and paediatric biobanks is not much discussed in ethical literature. The traditional arguments pro and con return of such findings focus on principles such as respect for persons, autonomy and solidarity. Two dimensions have been distilled from the discussion on return of individual results in a genetic research context: the respect for a participant's autonomy and the duty of the researcher. Concepts such as autonomy and solidarity do not fit easily in the discussion when paediatric biobanks are concerned. Although parents may be allowed to enrol children in minimal risk genetic research on stored tissue samples, they should not be given the option to opt out of receiving important health information. Also, children have a right to an open future: parents do not have the right to access any genetic data that a biobank holds on their children. In this respect, the guidelines on genetic testing of minors are applicable. With regard to the duty of the researcher the question of whether researchers have a more stringent duty to return important health information when their research subjects are children is more difficult to answer. A researcher's primary duty is to perform useful research, a policy to return individual results must not hamper this task. The fact that vulnerable children are concerned, is an additional factor that should be considered when a policy of returning results is laid down for a specific collection or research project.

An increasing number of private companies are now offering direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing services. Although a lot of attention has been devoted to the regulatory framework of DTC genetic testing services in the USA, only limited information about the regulatory framework in Europe is available. We will report on the situation with regard to the national legislation on DTC genetic testing in seven European countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, France, Germany, the United Kingdom). The paper will address whether these countries have legislation that specifically address the issue of DTC genetic testing or have relevant laws that is pertinent to the regulatory control of these services in their countries. The findings show that France, Germany, Portugal and Switzerland have specific legislation that defines that genetic tests can only be carried out by a medical doctor after the provision of sufficient information concerning the nature, meaning and consequences of the genetic test and after the consent of the person concerned. In the Netherlands, some DTC genetic tests could fall under legislation that provides the Minister the right to refuse to provide a license to operate if a test is scientifically unsound, not in accordance with the professional medical practice standards or if the expected benefit is not in balance with the (potential) health risks. Belgium and the United Kingdom allow the provision of DTC genetic tests.

This article analyses the ethical discussion of predictive genetic testing in minors for genetic conditions for which there is no phenotypic evidence for disease at the considered time of testing and for which there is currently no treatment available to prevent or forestall the development of the condition. After a presentation of the position of various professional guidelines, we discuss the position and arguments that have been advanced in a recent article that defends a position that is opposed to the professional recommendations. In the article, we discuss the position of voluntary choices and autonomous and informed decision-making in a context of open communication. Thereafter, we analyze the nonmedical benefits and harm related to this type of testing. Finally, we critically analyze 4 arguments: the potential provision of good news if a test is performed, the unbearability of knowing, identity and adjustment, and parental anxiety and uncertainty.

The potential benefits of biobank research are well known. Also, the ethical implications of genetic research on stored tissue samples are well discussed in existing literature. The inclusion of tissue samples from minors may have significant scientific value. However, this inclusion raises specific ethical questions. We have performed a systematic search of the literature and found 21 theoretical and empirical articles dealing with the issue. After review, we distilled five clusters of themes: consent, risks, benefits, return of results, and ownership. We have described the different components of these themes, as they occurred in the literature and have provided a discourse on the topic.