Despite the increasing availability of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, it is currently unclear how such services are regulated in Europe, due to the lack of EU or national legislation specifically addressing this issue. In this article, we provide an overview of laws that could potentially impact the regulation of DTC genetic testing in 26 European countries, namely Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Emphasis is placed on provisions relating to medical supervision, genetic counselling and informed consent. Our results indicate that currently there is a wide spectrum of laws regarding genetic testing in Europe. There are countries (e.g. France and Germany) which essentially ban DTC genetic testing, while in others (e.g. Luxembourg and Poland) DTC genetic testing may only be restricted by general laws, usually regarding health care services and patients’ rights.

Background and aimsSmoking is the main risk factor for the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that has been recently defined as a systemic pulmonary inflammatory disease. However, the impact of smoking itself on systemic inflammation in COPD patients has not yet been well established. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between inflammatory markers and smoking status.Materials and methodsWe compared 202 current smokers, 61 ex-smokers and 57 never-smokers, all COPD patients. Assessments included medical history, spirometry, alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT) genotyping, serum AAT, C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, and soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor (sTNFR)-1 and sTNFR-2 concentrations.ResultsAAT and CRP concentrations in smokers (1.75 ± 0.51 g/L and 14.4 [9.5-20.5] mg/L) and ex-smokers (1.69 ± 0.43 g/L and 12.3 [8.7-16.3] mg/L) were higher than in never-smokers (1.49 ± 0.38 g/L and 5.1 [2.5-8.7] mg/L; p < 0.05). sTNFR-1 level was higher in smokers than ex-smokers or never-smokers (241.2 pg/mL [145.3-349.4] vs. 213.7 pg/mL [147.1-280.3] and 205.2 pg/mL [125-275]; p < 0.05).ConclusionsOur data confirm that smoking is associated with increased levels of AAT, CRP, and sTNFR-1 in COPD patients, an array of systemic inflammation markers that continue to be active even after smoking cessation.

Currently in Europe, approximately 30 million people suffer from rare diseases, and a major problem is that many patients do not have access to quality healthcare for their disorders. Moreover, there is also a lack of quality information and a networking system aimed at supporting interaction among patients, clinicians, researchers, pharmaceutical industries, and governmental bodies. The purpose of this article is to inform physicians, public health care professionals, and other health care providers about EuOrphan service, the aim of which is to ensure easier access to quality information on rare diseases and their treatment. A set of web-based services is available at www.euorphan.com where information for target-users on treatments and products available worldwide for rare disease care as well as indications about healthcare centers are provided. Moreover, the service aims at providing consultancies for pharmaceutical companies to ultimately support the European legislation in bringing new drugs of a high ethical standard to the market and to exert a positive impact on the large population of patients suffering from rare diseases in Europe. The services provided by EuOrphan can facilitate concrete networking among patients, patient associations, doctors, and companies and also support the organization of clinical trials. In this perspective, EuOrphan could become a very valuable tool for globalizing the information about the availability of treatment (authorized or under development) of orphan patients.

The term natural family planning (NFP), both in the scientific terminology and in the practical language of health policy, is often referred to as natural contraception or fertility awareness–based methods (FABM). “NFP. A guide to providing services,” issued by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1988, presents NFP as a method inconsistent with any other contraceptive method but later published “Family Planning, a Global Handbook for Providers,” wherein NFP is not presented as a stand-alone method group but is grouped with FAB methods, which are combined with barrier contraception active during the fertile phase of a woman’s menstrual cycle if there is a desire to postpone pregnancy. In other words, the WHO family planning recommendations present FABM as one group of contraceptive methods. The WHO is the directing and coordinating authority on international health within the United Nations’ system. For these obvious reasons, the article mostly concentrates on WHO definition of FAMB. This article presents the anthropological and methodological differences between NFP (including and modern NFP methods that employ urinary hormone metabolite detection) and FABM and, through comparative analysis, determines that NFP is synonymous with neither FABM nor any of the methods of this group but is rather a distinct group of family planning methods. Summary: The term natural family planning (NFP), both in the scientific terminology and in the practical language of health policy, is often referred to as natural contraception or fertility awareness-based methods (FABM). The World Health Organization’s (WHO) is the directing and coordinating authority on international health within the United Nations’ system. WHO family planning recommendations present FABM as one group of contraceptive methods For these obvious reasons the article mostly concentrates on the WHO definition of FAMB. The article presents the anthropological and methodological differences between NFP and FABM and, through comparative analysis, determines that NFP is synonymous with neither FABM nor any of the methods of this group but is rather a distinct group of family planning methods.

Legal aspects related to the access of natural family planning services: patient's right to accurate and impartial information. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences.