Open Access Genetic Testing and Cancer Predisposition: The Legal Framework in France and Ethical Issues
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7202/1118906arKeywords:
genetic tests, cancer, autonomy, open access tests, French law, analysis of genetic characteristicsLanguage(s):
FrenchAbstract
Open access genetic tests are prohibited in France. The legal framework stipulates that analyses of genetic characteristics (AGC) for medical purposes must be prescribed by a doctor and that patients must be accompanied before and after the analysis, to ensure that the results are correctly interpreted and that appropriate follow-up is provided. However, freely available genetic tests can be purchased over the Internet, particularly by people living in France. This presents major ethical challenges, such as the illusion of autonomy, inequalities in access to care, and potential consequences: overdiagnosis, unnecessary prophylactic measures, including for the relatives of people who have recourse to them. Although the French legal framework on the subject of genetic testing is in line with the fundamental principles of medical ethics, it does not fully protect people who have recourse to an open-access genetic test.
References
1. Legifrance. Code de la santé publique. Article L1131-1. 4 aout 2021.
2. Legifrance. Code civil. Article 16-10. 21 mai 2023.
3. Thiebes S, Toussaint PA, Ju J, Ahn JH, Lyytinen K, Sunyaev A. Valuable genomes: taxonomy and archetypes of business models in direct-to-consumer genetic testing. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(1):e14890.
4. Roblin M, Crivelli L. Conseil génétique et impacts psychologiques. Bull Cancer. 2025;112(3):251-52.
5. de Pauw A, Schwartz M, Colas C, et al. Direct-to-consumer misleading information on cancer risks calls for an urgent clarification of health genetic testing performed by commercial companies. Eur J Cancer. 2020;132:100-3.
6. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics: marking its fortieth anniversary. Am J Bioeth. 2019;19(11):9-12.
7. Maudot C, Koual M, Azaïs H, Benoit L, et al. Hystérectomie prophylactique (syndrome de Lynch, BRCA et autres). Bull Cancer. 2025;112(3):326-34.
8. Legifrance. Arrêté du 27 mai 2013 définissant les règles de bonnes pratiques applicables à l’examen des caractéristiques génétiques d’une personne à des fins médicales. 7 juin 2013.
9. Gladieff L, Lyonnet DS, Lortholary A, Leary A, Genestie C, Ray-Coquard I. Cancers de l’ovaire BRCA muté : consultation d’oncogénétique et prescription des inhibiteurs de PARP. Bull Cancer. 2017;104(Suppl 1):S16-23.
10. Legifrance. Code pénal. Article 226-28-1. 9 juillet 2011.
11. Assurance Maladie. Tableaux récapitulatifs des taux de remboursement. 26 février 2025.
12. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA allows marketing of first direct-to-consumer tests that provide genetic risk information for certain conditions. Press Release. 6 Apr 2017.
13. Ménard T, Barros A, Ganter C. Clinical quality considerations when using next-generation sequencing (NGS) in clinical drug development. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2021;55(5):1066-74.
14. Réglementation Générale sur la Protection des Données (RGPD). Article 9 - Traitement portant sur des catégories particulières de données à caractère personnel.
15. Gamble LA, Grant RRC, Samaranayake SG, et al. Decision-making and regret in patients with germline CDH1 variants undergoing prophylactic total gastrectomy. J Med Genet. 2023;60(3):241-46.
16. Dwyer AA, Shen H, Zeng Z, Gregas M, Zhao M. Framing effects on decision-making for diagnostic genetic testing: results from a randomized trial. Genes. 2021;12(6):941.
17. European Commission. Ethical, Legal, and Social Aspects and Implications of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing. CORDIS. 21 Mai 2011.
18. Tabor HK, Kelley M. Challenges in the use of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing in children. Am J Bioeth. 2009;9(6-7):32-4.
19. Hakonarson H, Gulcher JR, Stefansson K. deCODE genetics, Inc. Pharmacogenomics. 2003;4(2):209-15.
20. Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL). Tests génétiques sur Internet: la CNIL appelle à la vigilance. 6 mars 2024.
21. Groupe de travail Ligue nationale contre le cancer, Unicancer. Accès aux tests génétiques en oncologie. Février 2021.
22. Joly Y, Dalpe G. Genetic discrimination still casts a large shadow in 2022. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022;30(12):1320-22.
23. Yim SH, Chung YJ. Reflections on the US FDA’s warning on direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Genomics Inform. 2014;12(4):151-5.
24. Suter SM. GINA at 10 years: the battle over ‘genetic information’ continues in court. J Law Biosci. 2019;5(3):495-526.
25. Credential Stuffing Incident: What happened? 23andMe. 5 décembre 2023.
26. Guerrini CJ, Robinson JO, Bloss CC, et al. Family secrets: Experiences and outcomes of participating in direct-to-consumer genetic relative-finder services. Am J Hum Genet. 2022;109(3):486-97.
27. Bonomi L, Huang Y, Ohno-Machado L. Privacy challenges and research opportunities for genomic data sharing. Nat Genet. 2020;52(7):646-54.
28. Gram EG, Copp T, Ransohoff DF, et al. Direct-to-consumer tests: emerging trends are cause for concern. BMJ. 2024;387:e080460.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Timothé Ménard
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Canadian Journal of Bioethics applies the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License to all its publications. Authors therefore retain copyright of their publication, e.g., they can reuse their publication, link to it on their home page or institutional website, deposit a PDF in a public repository. However, the authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, distribute, and/or copy their publication, so long as the original authors and source are cited.
_smaller.png){kind=logo}
