ABSTRACT
Debates about genetic counselling have tended to focus on three issues: aims, ethos and outcomes. As far as the aims are concerned, there has been discussion about the extent to which the aims are to facilitate choice on the part of clients, including reproductive choice where the counselling is concerned with reproductive issues; and the extent to which there are public health goals (Chadwick 1998). As regards ethos, debate has turned on the issues of whether non-directiveness if possible and desirable (Clarke 1991; Chadwick et al. 1993). Then there has been discussion about how the outcomes of genetic counselling are to be measured, what counts as a successful outcome (Chadwick 1993). Clearly the last issue is not unconnected with the first, as the measure of a successful outcome must have reference to the aim of the process.
