Childhood genetic testing raises complex ethical and moral dilemmas for both families and
professionals. In the family sphere, the role of communication is a key aspect in the
transmission of `genetic responsibility’ between adults and children. In the professional
sphere, genetic responsibility is an interactional accomplishment emerging from competing
views over what constitutes the `best interests’ of the child in relation to parental preferences
on the one hand, and professional codes of practice on the other. In the present paper we
extend our previous research into parental accounts of childhood genetic testing and explore
the ethical explanations/descriptions of professionals in research interviews. Interviews
(n=20) were conducted with professional practitioners involved in the genetic diagnosis and
management of children and their families. We first identify four inter-related themes –
juxtaposition of parental rights vis-à-vis child’s autonomy, elicitation of the child’s
autonomy, avoidance of parental responsibility and acknowledgement of uncertainty – and
then, using Rhetorical Discourse Analysis, examine the range of devices through which
ethical explanations are situationally illustrated: contrast, reported speech, constructed
dialogue, character and event work. An important device for facilitating ethical explanations
is the use of extreme case scenarios which reconstructs dilemmas as justifications of
professional conduct. While acknowledging ambivalence, our analysis of professional
accounts suggests that ethical practice is not a simple matter of implementing principles but
managing the practical consequences of interactions with parents and children. We conclude
that more attention is needed to understand the way professional practitioners construct and
share cases as useful illustrations of evidence-based ethical practice
