[Genomic newborn screening. Perspective from the Ethics Commission of the Spanish Society for Human Genetics. Part II: Ethical, legal and social issues (ELSIs) of the introduction of next generation sequencing technologies in a public health newborn screening program.].

Genome sequencing is a very attractive technology as it is also the idea of sequencing children at birth, with the aim to establish medical care and preventive actions during their whole life, tailored to the genome of each newborn. Part I of this article analyses limitations and opportunities of next generation sequencing technologies (NGS). Part II relates scientific knowledge with ethical, legal and social issues (ELSIs) concerning its application to a newborn screening program. This program is offered universally to a vulnerable and asymptomatic population and must be guided by principles of "do not harm" and to act in the "best interest of child". With this purpose, this article considers, first of all, ethical principles of bioethics and public health that govern newborn screening. Then it summarizes main issues of our legal framework. And finally, in social context, it analyzes influences of technological imperative, commercial actors and patient´s advocacy groups, as well as parent's perspective and psychosocial aspects. In this context, conclusion is that whole genome sequencing should not be implemented as universal newborn screening. Nevertheless, the use of NGS could be an opportunity to extend these programs, including treatable infantile diseases that cannot be detected with other technologies. That means realizing a directed approach in order to identify well known genomic variants, highly penetrant, that confer a high risk of preventable or treatable diseases for which treatment must begin at the neonatal period. The implementation of such directed genomic screening should follow current evidence based model for newborn screening. This model shows three features: recognition of the importance of the evaluation of empirical, epidemiological and clinical data before taking the decision to include a disease; evaluation of benefits and risks (proportionality) and evaluation of benefits and costs (distributive justice); and finally, consideration of public consensus, because this kind of decisions have a value that concerns society as a whole.