Hereditary Myelopathies

Hereditary myelopathies are an important and likely underappreciated component of neurogenetic disease. While previously distinctions have been made by age of onset, the growing power and availability of high-quality neuroimaging and next-generation sequencing are increasingly expanding classical phenotypes and diminishing the utility of age-based classifications. Increasingly, cases of “atypical” disease presentations are challenging past assumptions regarding the age of onset and survival in many disorders and identifying allelic syndromes in others. Despite this, there is poor awareness of the potential for spinal involvement in many diseases that typically affect the brain. Broadly speaking, congenital myelopathies can be neuroanatomically grouped into motor neuron, axonopathy, spinocerebellar, cerebroleukodystrophy, and pan-neuraxis (generally central nervous system predominant with associated axonopathy) disorders.Here, we review hereditary causes of myelopathy, organized by neuroanatomy, and highlight atypical presentations. We discuss findings concerning an underlying genetic etiology for myelopathy, as well as practical, technical, and ethical considerations of diagnostic genetic testing.

Contacting gamete donors to facilitate diagnostic genetic testing for the donor-conceived child: what are the rights and obligations of gamete donors in these cases? A response to Horton et al

In their paper Horton et al argue that it is acceptable to contact an anonymous egg-donor to facilitate diagnostic genetic testing for the donor conceived child, despite the donor, ‘indicating on a historical consent form that she did not wish to take part in future research, and that she did not wish to be informed if she was found to be a carrier of a “harmful inherited condition”’. There are a number of claims embedded in Horton et al’s position that it is acceptable to contact the donor and request that she at least think about participating in genetic testing. In this response. I will go through their main claims and argue that the area of genomic medicine does not justify exceptions to general consent conditions as the authors suppose and conclude that the donor should not be contacted. I will then go on to suggest a policy change that would address Horton et al’s concerns but would not involve over-riding any previously expressed wishes.