1
|
Berens N, Wasserman D. Restricting Access, Stigmatizing Disability? THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS : AJOB 2022; 22:25-27. [PMID: 35089832 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2021.2013989] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
|
2
|
Bayefsky MJ, Berkman BE. Implementing Expanded Prenatal Genetic Testing: Should Parents Have Access to Any and All Fetal Genetic Information? THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS : AJOB 2022; 22:4-22. [PMID: 33459580 PMCID: PMC10066540 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1867933] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/20/2023]
Abstract
Prenatal genetic testing is becoming available for an increasingly broad set of diseases, and it is only a matter of time before parents can choose to test for hundreds, if not thousands, of genetic conditions in their fetuses. Should access to certain kinds of fetal genetic information be limited, and if so, on what basis? We evaluate a range of considerations including reproductive autonomy, parental rights, disability rights, and the rights and interests of the fetus as a potential future child. We conclude that parents should be able to access information that could be useful during pregnancy, but that testing for non-medical information should be limited. Next, we argue that the government lacks a compelling state interest in regulating prenatal genetic testing and propose that regulation should occur through medical professional organizations. Finally, we present a framework for determining what testing physicians should recommend, offer neutrally, or not offer at all.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michelle J. Bayefsky
- New York University Langone Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York, NY, USA
| | - Benjamin E. Berkman
- National Institutes of Health, Department of Bioethics, Bethesda, MD, USA
- National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ngan OMY, Yi H, Bryant L, Sahota DS, Chan OYM, Ahmed S. Parental expectations of raising a child with disability in decision-making for prenatal testing and termination of pregnancy: A mixed methods study. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING 2020; 103:2373-2383. [PMID: 32507714 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.05.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2019] [Revised: 05/03/2020] [Accepted: 05/07/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To examine attitudes toward prenatal testing and termination of pregnancy (TOP) among parents and obstetric providers in relation to their views on raising a child with disability. METHODS An explanatory sequential mixed methods study. A survey among 274 parents and 141 providers was followed by interviews with 26 parents and 10 providers. Using multivariate analysis, the relationships between attitudes were examined. Thematic analysis was used to identify the reasons behind the attitudes. RESULTS In comparison with providers, parents reported more positive attitudes toward raising a child with disability and more moral views about TOP. Providers reported more variations in attitudes toward offering prenatal testing and TOP. Significant associations were found between attitudes toward prenatal testing, raising a child with disability, reproductive autonomy, and TOP. Three major themes were identified: (1) meanings of parenthood from genetic tests; (2) views toward TOP and parental responsibility; and (3) implications of advanced extended prenatal genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS Perceived social-cultural norms of disabilities and parental expectations of raising a child with disability influence decision-making regarding TOP. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS As more conditions of the fetus are able to be detected, the social-cultural implications of the technology and disabilities need to be addressed in antenatal care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olivia Miu Yung Ngan
- CUHK Centre for Bioethics, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
| | - Huso Yi
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore.
| | - Louise Bryant
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Daljit Singh Sahota
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
| | - Olivia Yiu Man Chan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
| | - Shenaz Ahmed
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
Advances in human genome editing, in particular the development of the clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas9 method, have led to increasing concerns about the ethics of editing the human genome. In response, the US National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine constituted a multidisciplinary, international committee to review the current status and make recommendations. I was a member of that committee, and the core of this review reflects the committee's conclusions. The committee's report, issued in February 2017, recommends the application of current ethical and regulatory standards for gene therapy to somatic (nonheritable) human genome editing. It also recommends allowing experimental germline genome editing to proceed if ( a) it is restricted to preventing transmission of a serious disease or condition, ( b) the edit is a modification to a common DNA sequence known not to be associated with disease, and ( c) the research is conducted under a stringent set of ethical and regulatory requirements. Crossing the so-called red line of germline genome editing raises important bioethical issues, most importantly, serious concern about the potential negative impact on individuals with disabilities. This review highlights some of the major ethical considerations in human genome editing in light of the report's recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Barry S Coller
- Allen and Frances Adler Laboratory of Blood and Vascular Biology, Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10065, USA;
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
LePoire E, Basu B, Walker L, Bowen DJ. What do people think about genetics? A systematic review. J Community Genet 2018; 10:171-187. [PMID: 30406598 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-018-0394-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2018] [Accepted: 10/23/2018] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Genetics is increasingly becoming a part of modern medical practice. How people think about genetics' use in medicine and their daily lives is therefore essential. Earlier studies indicated mixed attitudes about genetics. However, this might be changing. Using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) as a guideline, we initially reviewed 442 articles that looked at awareness, attitudes, knowledge, and perception of risks among the general and targeted recruitment populations. After fitting our criteria (from the last 5 years, conducted in the USA, non-provider populations, quantitative results reported, and assessed participants 18 years and older), finally 51 eligible articles were thematically coded and presented in this paper. Awareness is reported as relatively high in the studies reviewed. Attitudes are mixed but with higher proportions reporting positive attitudes towards genetic testing and counseling. Self-reported knowledge is reasonably high, specifically with the effects of specific programs developed to raise knowledge levels of the general and targeted recruited populations. Perception of risk is somewhat aligned with actual risk. With the reasonable positive reports of genetic awareness and knowledge, there is similar positive attitude and perception of risk, supporting the need for continued dissemination of such knowledge. Given interest in incorporating community participation in genomic educational strategies, we provide this review as a baseline from which to launch community-specific educational supports and tools.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erin LePoire
- University of Washington, Box 357120, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - Baishakhi Basu
- University of Washington, Box 357120, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - Lorelei Walker
- Health Equity Circle, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - Deborah J Bowen
- University of Washington, Box 357120, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Raz AE, Amano Y, Timmermans S. Coming to terms with the imperfectly normal child: attitudes of Israeli parents of screen-positive infants regarding subsequent prenatal diagnosis. J Community Genet 2018; 10:41-50. [PMID: 29504050 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-018-0361-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2017] [Revised: 02/13/2018] [Accepted: 02/20/2018] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
This study examines the interface between newborn screening and prenatal diagnosis from the point-of-view of parents of screen-positive children. Many conditions covered by newborn screening represent classic (autosomal recessive) Mendelian disorders. Parents of screen-positive infants therefore often come to learn that they are carriers of the disease, and face a decision whether to test for it in future pregnancies. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2015-2017 with 34 Israeli parents whose child was screen positive. Three major themes emanated from the parents' attitudes toward prenatal testing for the disease in prospective hypothetical pregnancies: rejection of prenatal testing for the disease associated with the screen positive, and relying instead on newborn screening to reveal if a future baby is also sick (18/34, 53%); support of prenatal testing to get more information (7/34, 21%) and support of prenatal testing in order to abort in case of a test positive (9/34, 26%). We discuss the importance of newborn screening for reproductive decision-making, highlighting the arguments associated with positive and negative parental views of the possibility of having another child with the same condition associated with the screen-positive of the child that had already been born. The conclusions challenge the common assertion that parents pursue the dream of the "perfect child" through prenatal diagnosis that "naturally" leads to selective abortion. The diversity of views expressed by Israeli parents of screen-positive children highlights the diversity of normative scripts of "genetic responsibility" in the context of parenthood.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aviad E Raz
- Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel.
| | - Yael Amano
- Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
|
8
|
Hill M, Barrett A, Choolani M, Lewis C, Fisher J, Chitty LS. Has noninvasive prenatal testing impacted termination of pregnancy and live birth rates of infants with Down syndrome? Prenat Diagn 2017; 37:1281-1290. [PMID: 29111614 PMCID: PMC5767768 DOI: 10.1002/pd.5182] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2017] [Revised: 10/25/2017] [Accepted: 10/29/2017] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a highly accurate aneuploidy screening test has raised questions around whether the high uptake may result in more terminations of pregnancies and fewer births of children with Down syndrome (DS). AIM The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of NIPT on termination and live birth rates for DS. METHODS Literature reporting pregnancy outcomes following NIPT was reviewed. Termination rates were calculated for women with a high-risk NIPT result for DS. Two audits of pregnancy outcomes where NIPT indicated DS were conducted in the United Kingdom and Singapore. RESULTS Fourteen studies from the United States, Asia, Europe, and the United Kingdom were included in the review. Live births of children with DS were reported in 8 studies. Termination rates following NIPT were unchanged or decreased when compared to termination rates prior to the introduction of NIPT. Audits found 15 of 43 women in the United Kingdom and 2 of 6 in Singapore continued pregnancies following a high-risk NIPT result. CONCLUSIONS Termination rates following the detection of DS by NIPT are unchanged or decreased compared to historical termination rates. Impact on live birth rates may be minimal in settings where termination rates fall. Population-based studies are required to determine the true impact.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melissa Hill
- Genetics and Genomic MedicineUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child HealthLondonUK
- North East Thames Regional Genetics ServiceGreat Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| | - Angela Barrett
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Yong Loo Lin School of MedicineNational University of SingaporeSingapore
| | - Mahesh Choolani
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Yong Loo Lin School of MedicineNational University of SingaporeSingapore
| | - Celine Lewis
- Genetics and Genomic MedicineUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child HealthLondonUK
- North East Thames Regional Genetics ServiceGreat Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| | | | - Lyn S. Chitty
- Genetics and Genomic MedicineUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child HealthLondonUK
- North East Thames Regional Genetics ServiceGreat Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Patients’ Knowledge of Prenatal Screening for Trisomy 21. J Genet Couns 2017; 27:95-103. [DOI: 10.1007/s10897-017-0126-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2017] [Accepted: 06/07/2017] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
|
10
|
Parham L, Michie M, Allyse M. Expanding Use of cfDNA Screening in Pregnancy: Current and Emerging Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues. CURRENT GENETIC MEDICINE REPORTS 2017; 5:44-53. [PMID: 38089918 PMCID: PMC10715629 DOI: 10.1007/s40142-017-0113-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
Abstract
Purpose of Review In 2011, screening platforms became available in the US that detect and analyze fragments of cell-free placental DNA (cfDNA) in maternal blood serum. Marketed as noninvasive prenatal tests (NIPT), cfDNA screening is more accurate than previously available serum screening tests for certain aneuploidies. The combination of a noninvasive procedure, high specificity and sensitivity, and lower false positive rates for some aneuploidies (most notably Down's syndrome) has led to broad clinician and patient adoption. New ethical, legal, and social issues arise from the increased use and expanded implementation of cfDNA in pregnancy. Recent Findings Recently, several professional associations have amended their guidelines on cfDNA, removing language recommending its use in only "high-risk" pregnancies in favor of making cfDNA screening an available option for women with "low-risk" pregnancies as well. At the same time, commercial cfDNA screening laboratories continue to expand the range of available test panels. As a result, the future of prenatal screening will likely include a broader range of genetic tests in a wider range of patients. Summary This article addresses the ethical, legal, and social issues related to the shift in guidance and expanded use of cfDNA in pregnant women, including concerns regarding routinized testing, an unmet and increasing demand for genetic counseling services, social and economic disparities in access, impact on groups living with disabling conditions, and provider liability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lindsay Parham
- School of Law, Department of Jurisprudence and Social Policy, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
| | - Marsha Michie
- School of Nursing, Institute for Health and Aging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Megan Allyse
- Biomedical Ethics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|