Abstract
Genetics in medicine is rapidly becoming integral to European healthcare, yet access to high-quality genetic counseling remains inconsistent. Genetic counseling empowers patients to make informed decisions about genetic testing, improves clinical management, and mitigates psychosocial harm. Despite growing demand, the genetic counselor profession lacks legal recognition, standardized education, and harmonized regulation across European Union (EU) Member States. Current fragmentation, which is evident in separate national laws and variable practices, poses systemic risks, including inequitable care and credentialing barriers. This paper argues that harmonization is essential to ensure ethical, safe, and effective genetic services. We recommend EU-wide legal recognition of genetic counselors, standardized education through EBMG-accredited programs, and investment in workforce development and education. Coordinated action can safeguard individuals’ rights, support professional mobility, and enable responsible integration of genomics into healthcare.
Introduction
Genetics in medicine is being integrated into both preventive and clinical healthcare across the European Union (EU) to improve patient outcomes and prevention strategies. Patients who undergo genetic investigations and genetic testing or not, need to make informed decisions. Genetic counseling aims to empower patients by providing clear, comprehensive information about the genetic investigation, its significance and implications for themselves and family members through individual support [1, 2], as summarized in Box 1.
Insufficient access to high quality genetic counseling can lead to misunderstandings of diagnostic results, inefficient clinical management, such as delays in early detection, treatment planning, or risk-reducing strategies, higher healthcare costs, and negative psychosocial effects for patients [3]. Thus, we argue that the current expansion of genetic testing in European healthcare must be accompanied by a robust framework of high-quality genetic counseling delivered by appropriately trained professionals.
Why harmonization matters
Genetics in medicine is creating an increasingly prominent role due to the expanding diagnostic and treatment options. Possibilities for genetic testing touches on many aspects of ethics, psychosocial, medical content, prevention, communication, and fundamental research. Consequently, there are collaborations with numerous departments; the list of Centers of Expertise and publications provide more information on this. The genetic counseling process helps patients understand and adapt to the medical, psychological, and familial implications of genetic disease through risk assessment, education, and support for informed decision-making [1]. The process should be performed by specifically trained Medical Doctors (MDs), who focus on diagnostic issues, and/or non-MD genetic counselors (GCs) who focus more on psychological issues and support. Consequently, the need for qualified GCs to support mainstream genetics grows rapidly in many settings, such as clinical genetics services, specialized clinics, biobank facilities, and population screening programs [3, 4]. MDs trained in Clinical Genetics have EU-wide regulation since 2011 [5]. Yet, the GC profession across Europe remains under-recognized, inconsistently regulated, and unevenly integrated into national healthcare systems [2]. Some countries utilize MDs and GCs, while others allow genetic counseling only by MDs and do not yet use the profession of non-MD GCs [6].
The lack of harmonization at the European level poses a systemic risk. Genetic counseling, like many other health-care service, should be part of routine clinical practice and be provided by qualified professionals [7]. Legal professional recognition serves to protect the public by regulating the safe and competent practice of health care professionals [8]. Patients are entitled to equitable access to quality genetic counseling, and professionals to formal recognition, cross-border mobility, and clearly defined practices. Additionally, consistent standards delivering genetic services in an ethical, safe, and effective manner are needed.
The current European landscape: growth and fragmentation
The EuroGentest working group undertook a comprehensive review of legislation, policy, and practice across Europe covering the period from 2008 to 2025. A refined literature-search with relevant MeSH-terms in the PubMed database was employed. Identifying more than 300 articles, including several examples of progress, such as increased awareness of the GC role, core competency frameworks, and previous accreditation of education programs [9].
Additionally, gaps were consistently identified across many European countries:
-
GC professionals lack legal recognition in most EU countries (only to be found in 2/27 countries);
-
The GC role lacks formal regulation, defined expectations, and quality assurance;
-
GC educational standards in individual countries are heterogeneous, or non-existent;
-
GC workforce capacity is insufficient to meet the growing demand.
A wide disparity in professional integration and legal status exists for GCs in Europe, as shown by the following examples: Only France and Iceland have a legal recognition of GCs [10], and most EU countries maintain a restrictive model [11]. Austria, Belgium, and Germany consider genetic counseling a medical act, only to be realized by MDs [6]. In most Nordic countries, GCs lack legal recognition, but work in teams governed by Medical Geneticists (= MDs), [personal communication, Nordic Network on Genetic Counseling]. In the Netherlands, the GC role is filled by Physician Assistants. However, education for this group of health care professionals is not sufficient regarding clinical genetics knowledge [12]. In Estonia there is only one accredited GC (trained in the US) and the reimbursement of genetic counseling service is under consideration (tervisekassa.ee). In Malta, GCs are not recognized, and work under the interim title “Practitioners II (Genomic Care Coordinators)”. This fragmentation is also identified in research, revealing highly inconsistent practices and 18 separate national laws on genetic counseling across the 27 EU Member States. Persistent barriers were identified such as limited genetic literacy among both patients and non-geneticist physicians, and insufficient workforce capacity [3].
The reviewed literature consistently called for harmonized standards, expanded training programmes and ethically grounded, quality genetic counseling services, to allow the advances in genomics to be translated into responsible and equitable clinical practice [7, 13]. The full potential of mainstreaming genetic testing can be reached when complimentary with genetic counseling, and MDs have the medical responsibility.
The consequences of delayed action
The findings presented here indicate a large variety, which undermines expectations of adequate, quality genetic counseling. The absence of harmonized standards has consequences which include the following:
A European necessity
This working group believes coordinated action is necessary, similarly stated in a recent EU-wide research publication from 2026 [19]. Harmonization is necessary and we recommend European policymakers, professional bodies, and healthcare leaders to take the following actions:
-
1.
Legally recognize GCs as distinct allied-health professionals and establish a European-wide framework for professional recognition.
-
2.
Protect the professional title non-MD “Genetic Counselor” to guarantee accountability, patient safety, and public trust.
-
3.
Standardize education and credentialing by endorsing European Board of Medical Genetics (EBMG)-accredited master’s programs.
-
4.
Invest in workforce development (including genomics training for all healthcare professionals).
Associations such as the European Society of Human Genetics, the EBMG, and EuroGentest are well-positioned to support this effort, which will require collaboration across disciplines, institutions, and borders, as well as coordination, and commitment from the highest political levels. Harmonizing the GC profession in the EU should also coordinate with global efforts, like in Canada [20]. Finally, European countries must prepare to ensure that citizens have access to recognized, competent, and compassionate counseling services by proficiently trained professionals.
References
Resta RG, Bowles Biesecker B, Bennett RL, Blum S, Hahn SE, Strecker MN, et al. A new definition of genetic counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors’ Task Force report. J Genet Couns. 2006;15:77–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-005-9014-3.
Bedrosian I, Somerfield MR, Achatz MI, Curigliano G, Friedman S, Kohlmann W, et al. Germline testing in patients with breast cancer: ASCO–Society of Surgical Oncology guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42:3123–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.02225.
McCrary JM, Van Valckenborgh E, Poirel HA, de Putter R, van Rooij J, Horgan D, et al. Genetic counselling legislation and practice in cancer in EU Member States. Eur J Public Health. 2024;34:666–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckae093.
European Union. Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices. Off J Eur Union. 2017 May 5;L117:176-332. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32017R0746.
European Commission. Commission Regulation (EU) No 213/2011 amending Annexes II and V to Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications. Off J Eur Union. 2011 Mar 3. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0213.
Schwaninger G, Benjamin C, Rudnik-Schöneborn S, Zschocke J. The genetic counselling profession in Austria: Stakeholders’ perspectives. J Genet Couns. 2021;30:861–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1389.
Bamshad MJ, Magoulas PL, Dent KM. Genetic counselors on the frontline of precision health. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2018;178:5–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.c.31610.
Lambert DM, Patrinos D, Knoppers BM, Zawati MH, GenCOUNSEL Study. Genetic counselors and legal recognition: a made-for-Canada approach. J Genet Couns. 2022;31:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1468.
European Board of Medical Genetics. Genetic Nurses & Genetic Counsellors branch [Internet]. Available from: https://www.ebmg.eu/408.0.html. Cited 2025 Dec 1.
Cordier C, Taris N, De Pauw A, Sobol H, Philip N, Voelckel MA. French professionals in genetic counselor careers. J Genet Couns. 2013;22:844–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-013-9599-x.
Ormond KE, Abad PJ, MacLeod R, Nishigaki M, Wessels T-M. The global status of genetic counsellors in 2023: What has changed in the past 5 years? Genet Med Open. 2024;2:101887 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gimo.2024.101887.
Patterson WG, Ward LD. Genetics and genomics education for physician assistant students: A review of the literature. J Physician Assist Educ. 2023;34:62–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/JPA.0000000000000491.
Mueller A, Dalton E, Enserro D, Wang C, Flynn M. Recontact practices of cancer genetic counselors and an exploration of professional, legal, and ethical duty. J Genet Couns. 2019;28:836–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1126.
Pasquier L, Reyneke M, Beeckman L, Siermann M, Van Steijvoort E, Borry P. Attitudes of professional stakeholders towards implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening: A systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet. 2023;31:395–408. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01274-9.
Serra G, Memo L, Coscia A, Giuffré M, Iuculano A, Lanna M, et al. Recommendations for neonatologists and pediatricians working in first level birthing centers on the first communication of genetic disease and malformation syndrome diagnosis: Consensus issued by 6 Italian scientific societies and 4 parents’ associations. Ital J Pediatr. 2021;47:94 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-021-01044-1.
Borry P, van Hellemondt RE, Sprumont D, Jales CF, Rial-Sebbag E, Spranger TM, et al. Legislation on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in seven European countries. Eur J Hum Genet. 2012;20:715–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2011.278.
Gilbar R, Foster C. Doctors’ liability to the patient’s relatives in genetic medicine: ABC v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust. Med Law Rev. 2016;24:112–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwv037. Winter.
Lenk C, Frommeld D. Different concepts and models of information for family-relevant genetic findings: Comparison and ethical analysis. Med Health Care Philos. 2015;18:393–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-015-9638-5.
McCrary JM, van Valckenborgh E, Horgan D, Aleksandrova E, Bargou R, Lohajova Behulova R, et al. Priority European strategies for sustainable access to high-quality genetic counselling in cancer: A Delphi study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2026 Feb. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-026-02015-y.
Patrinos D, Bonilha AE, Knoppers BM, Elliott AM, Zawati MH. Paths of legal recognition of genetic counselors in Canada: A framework for action. J Genet Couns. 2026;35:e70159. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.70159.
Acknowledgements
We extend our gratitude for the support of the ESHG board, the EuroGentest committee, and the EBMG genetic counselor branch, for their support and tireless work promoting the importance of genetic counseling. All authors are members of the EuroGentest committee of ESHG, the European Society of Human Genetics.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Linköping University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
RP, CC, DD, KÕ, CjVA conceived, designed, and interpreted the work and results behind the manuscript; RP wrote the draft; RP, CC, DD, KÕ, CjVA revised the draft, and approved final submission and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical approval
This work is deemed exempt from ethical approval as it does not involve sensitive information that could cause harm to any individual person or group.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Pestoff, R., Cordier, C., Darmanin, D. et al. Harmonizing the genetic counselor profession in Europe. Eur J Hum Genet (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-026-02097-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-026-02097-8