Pharmacists are extremely hopeful towards pharmacogenomic testing. Furthermore, a vast majority is willing to integrate these tests as part of their clinical practice. Proper education will be required if the integration of pharmacogenomics in patient care is to be optimal.

This paper presents the existing legal frameworks, professional guidelines and other documents related to the conditions and extent of the disclosure of genetic information by physicians to at-risk family members. Although the duty of a physician regarding disclosure of genetic information to a patient's relatives has only been addressed by few legal cases, courts have found such a duty under some circumstances. Generally, disclosure should not be permitted without the patient's consent. Yet, due to the nature of genetic information, exceptions are foreseen, where treatment and prevention are available. This duty to warn a patient's relative is also supported by some professional and policy organizations that have addressed the issue. Practice guidelines with a communication and intervention plan are emerging, providing physicians with tools that allow them to assist patients in their communication with relatives without jeopardizing their professional liability. Since guidelines aim to improve the appropriateness of medical practice and consequently to better serve the interests of patients, it is important to determine to what degree they document the 'best practice' standards. Such an analysis is an essential step to evaluate the different approaches permitting the disclosure of genetic information to family members.

Emerging technologies are increasingly used in an attempt to "enhance the human body and/or mind" beyond the contemporary standards that characterize human beings. Yet, such standards are deeply controversial and it is not an easy task to determine whether the application of a given technology to an individual and its outcome can be defined as a human enhancement or not. Despite much debate on its potential or actual ethical and social impacts, human enhancement is not subject to any consensual definition. This paper proposes a timely and much needed examination of the various definitions found in the literature. We classify these definitions into four main categories: the implicit approach, the therapy-enhancement distinction, the improvement of general human capacities and the increase of well-being. After commenting on these different approaches and their limitations, we propose a definition of human enhancement that focuses on individual perceptions. While acknowledging that a definition that mainly depends on personal and subjective individual perceptions raises many challenges, we suggest that a comprehensive approach to define human enhancement could constitute a useful premise to appropriately address the complexity of the ethical and social issues it generates.

Awareness of ethical issues that may be raised by the implementation of nutrigenetic/nutrigenomic (NGx) testing and personalized nutrition, at an individual or a public health level, is crucial to ensure the latter's sound and effective implementation. NGx tests that are currently offered or developed have different natures and scopes. We provide an example of NGx testing on the MTHFR gene to illustrate the current challenges when it comes to grasp the meaning of the results of such testing. In addition, NGx testing is developed within an evolving landscape of new genomic technologies and occurs at a time when public health policies mainly focus on preventive and predictive healthcare, with an emphasis on increased individual responsibility. The ethical issues raised by such a context and the genetic nature of NGx testing both should be carefully evaluated.

The use of Whole-Genome Sequencing (WGS) in clinical settings has brought up a number of controversial scientific and ethical issues. The application of WGS is of particular relevance in neurology, as many conditions are difficult to diagnose. We conducted a worldwide, web-based survey to explore neurologists' views on the benefits of, and concerns regarding, the clinical use of WGS, as well as the resources necessary to implement it. Almost half of the 204 neurologists in the study treated mostly adult patients (48%), while the rest mainly children (37.3%), or both (14.7%). Epilepsy (73%) and headaches (57.8%) were the predominant conditions treated. Factor analysis brought out two profiles: neurologists who would offer WGS to their patients, and those who would not, or were not sure in which circumstances it should be offered. Neurologists considering the use of WGS as bringing more benefits than drawbacks currently used targeted genetic testing (P<0.05) or treated mainly children (P<0.05). WGS' benefits were directed towards the patients, while its risks were of a financial and legal nature. Furthermore, there was a correlation between respondents' current use of genetic tests and an anticipation of increased use in the future (P<0.001). However, over half of respondents did not feel sufficiently informed to use WGS in their practice (53.5%). Our results highlight gaps in education, organization, and funding to support the use of WGS in neurology, and draw attention to the need for resources that could strongly contribute to more straightforward diagnoses and possibly better treatment of neurological conditions.