120
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR LEGISLATION ON GENETIC SCREENING
To the Editor: The National Sickle Cell Anemia Control Act enacted in 1972 allocated substantial federal funds for "the establishment and operation of voluntary sickle cell anemia screening and counseling programs." The law requires "strict confidentiality of test results," "appropriate community representation," "wholly voluntary" citizen participation, and a guarantee of "counseling to persons found to have sickle cell anemia or sickle cell trait" pursuant to screening programs conducted with federal money. The available federal funds have helped to stimulate new genetic screening legislation in several states (Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, North Carolina) as well as the revision of old laws in other jurisdictions. The language of these state laws demonstrates a clear intention to comply with federal rules. Thus the most egregious provisions of earlier screening laws have been neutralized. Language to be found in several of the new state genetic screening laws suggests that, eventually, guidelines will be promulgated that define minimum competence to engage in genetic counseling. Relevant sections of three laws (all passed in 1973) follow. 1. In Massachusetts (Ch. 76, sec. 15B): "the commissioner shall promulgate rules and regulations for testing, treatment, care and counseling of all susceptible persons." 2. In Maryland (Art. 43, sec. 818[g]): it is established principle that "counseling be nondirective." 3. In North Carolina (Ch. 143B-196): it is stated that "counseling shall be done only by persons adequately trained and certified according to criteria established by recognized authorities in the field of human genetics." The statutory language may be a harbinger of laws that will require genetic counselors to be licensed by the state in which they practice. Persons now involved in genetic counseling should be made aware of this possibility. If licensing statutes are to be enacted, it is imperative that lawmakers be made aware of the nuances of the profession that they may choose to regulate prior to drafting the law. PHILIP REILLY
Medical Genetics Center University of Texas Houston, Texas 77025
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR LEGISLATION ON GENETIC SCREENING
To the Editor: The National Sickle Cell Anemia Control Act enacted in 1972 allocated substantial federal funds for "the establishment and operation of voluntary sickle cell anemia screening and counseling programs." The law requires "strict confidentiality of test results," "appropriate community representation," "wholly voluntary" citizen participation, and a guarantee of "counseling to persons found to have sickle cell anemia or sickle cell trait" pursuant to screening programs conducted with federal money. The available federal funds have helped to stimulate new genetic screening legislation in several states (Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, North Carolina) as well as the revision of old laws in other jurisdictions. The language of these state laws demonstrates a clear intention to comply with federal rules. Thus the most egregious provisions of earlier screening laws have been neutralized. Language to be found in several of the new state genetic screening laws suggests that, eventually, guidelines will be promulgated that define minimum competence to engage in genetic counseling. Relevant sections of three laws (all passed in 1973) follow. 1. In Massachusetts (Ch. 76, sec. 15B): "the commissioner shall promulgate rules and regulations for testing, treatment, care and counseling of all susceptible persons." 2. In Maryland (Art. 43, sec. 818[g]): it is established principle that "counseling be nondirective." 3. In North Carolina (Ch. 143B-196): it is stated that "counseling shall be done only by persons adequately trained and certified according to criteria established by recognized authorities in the field of human genetics." The statutory language may be a harbinger of laws that will require genetic counselors to be licensed by the state in which they practice. Persons now involved in genetic counseling should be made aware of this possibility. If licensing statutes are to be enacted, it is imperative that lawmakers be made aware of the nuances of the profession that they may choose to regulate prior to drafting the law. PHILIP REILLY
Medical Genetics Center University of Texas Houston, Texas 77025
