A burden from birth? Non-invasive prenatal testing and the stigmatization of people with disabilities

"As if we are branded with the mark of Cain": stigma, guilt, and shame experienced by COVID-19 survivors in Israel - a qualitative study

Stigma is associated with harmful health outcomes, and it fuels social and health inequalities. It can undermine social cohesion and encourage social exclusion of groups, which may contribute to secrecy about disease symptoms, avoidance of disease testing and vaccination, and further spread of a contagious illness. Stigmatization is a social process set to exclude those who are perceived to be a potential source of disease and may pose a threat to effective interpersonal and social relationships. In this qualitative study, we delved into the stigmatization experiences of twenty COVID-19 recovered patients during the COVID-19 first wave, using in-depth semi-structured interviews conducted during November 2020. Using thematic analysis, we found that the process of stigmatization was all-encompassing, from the stage of diagnosis throughout the duration of the disease and the recovery phases. On the basis of the data, we hypothesized that stigma is a significant public health concern, and effective and comprehensive interventions are needed to counteract the damaging and insidious effects during infectious disease pandemics such as COVID-19, and reduce infectious disease-related stigma. Interventions should address provision of emotional support frameworks for the victims of stigmatization and discrimination that accompany the COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics. This study was conducted in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when uncertainty about the disease was high and fear of contamination fueled high levels of stigmatization against those who became ill with Covid-19.

Reproductive carrier screening: responding to the eugenics critique

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RCS), when offered to anyone regardless of their family history or ancestry, has been subject to the critique that it is a form of eugenics. Eugenics describes a range of practices that seek to use the science of heredity to improve the genetic composition of a population group. The term is associated with a range of unethical programmes that were taken up in various countries during the 20th century. Contemporary practice in medical genetics has, understandably, distanced itself from such programmes. However, as RCS becomes more widespread, gains public funding and uses expanded gene panels, there are concerns that such programmes could be perceived as eugenic either in intent or outcome. The typical response to the eugenics critique of RCS is to emphasise the voluntary nature of both participating in screening and making subsequent reproductive choices. While safeguarding individuals' freedom to choose in relation to screening is essential, we consider this response inadequate. By examining the specific ethical wrongs committed by eugenics in the past, we argue that to avoid the perception of RCS being a form of eugenics it is essential to attend to the broader normative context in which reproductive decisions occur. Furthermore, ethical RCS programmes must recognise and respond to their potential to shift societal norms that shape individual reproductive choices.

Implementing Expanded Prenatal Genetic Testing: Should Parents Have Access to Any and All Fetal Genetic Information?

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.

Fetal information as shared information: using NIPT to test for adult-onset conditions

The possibilities of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) are expanding, and the use of NIPT for adult-onset conditions may become widely available in the near future. If parents use NIPT to test for these conditions, and the pregnancy is continued, they will have information about the child's genetic predisposition from birth. In this paper, we argue that prospective parents should be able to access NIPT for an adult-onset condition, even when they have no intention to terminate the pregnancy. We begin by outlining the arguments against testing in such a situation, which generally apply the same considerations that apply in the predictive testing of a minor to the fetus in utero. We then contend, firstly, that there are important practical considerations that support availability of testing for prospective parents regardless of their stated intentions. Secondly, we object to the ethical equation of a fetus in utero with a minor. We base our analysis on a view of pregnancy that conceptualises the fetus as a part of the gestational parent, as opposed to the more common 'container' model of pregnancy. We suggest that fetal information is best conceptualised as shared information between the gestational parent and future child. Thus, it should be approached in similar ways as other kinds of shared information (such as genetic information with implications for family members), where a person has a claim over their own information, but should be encouraged to consider the interests of other relevant parties.

Do non-invasive prenatal tests promote discrimination against people with Down syndrome? What should be done?

By implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for the diagnosis of Down syndrome (DS) in maternity care, an ethical debate is newly inflamed how to deal with this information. Fears of the consequences of an increased use of NIPT are justified with the same arguments when amniocentesis and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) were introduced decades ago. It can be expected that the prevalence of people with DS would significantly increase in Western societies as a result of the increasing age of pregnant women and the improved medical care for people with DS. The net effect as to whether an increasing uptake of NIPT will result in more abortions of fetuses with trisomy 21 cannot be reliably estimated. This holds true since more and more couples will use results of NIPT for information only, but will not opt for termination of pregnancy. Although parents love their children with DS, in a society where reproductive autonomy is seen as an achievement, access to NIPT cannot be limited. On this background, comprehensive and qualified pretest counseling is vital, also to avoid possible stigmatization of people with DS and as the resulting consequence to avoid feared deterioration in their living conditions, for which, however, there is no evidence to date. The personal view of a mother of a child with DS illustrates the complexity in dealing with NIPT, which does not allow simple answers and must be understood as a challenge for society as a whole.

„Selektive“ Fortpflanzung durch pränatale Diagnostik?

Die breite Einführung nicht-invasiver pränataler Tests (NIPT) sowie die Ausweitung der Testziele über Trisomien hinaus machen es notwendig, Sinn und Ziel der pränatalen Diagnostik (PND) als emergente soziale Praxis grundsätzlich zu diskutieren. Wenn, wie angenommen wird, PND nicht zu eugenischen Zwecken, sondern zur Stärkung der Autonomie dienen soll, muss gefragt werden, welche Bedeutung die Entscheidungen haben, ein bestimmtes zukünftiges Kind (nicht) zu gebären. Stephen Wilkinson hat vorgeschlagen, PND als eine Form „selektiver Reproduktion“ zu verstehen. In diesem Paper wird geprüft, ob die Charakterisierung der Entscheidung nach PND als „Selektion“ zutrifft und welche moralischen Vorannahmen ihr zugrunde liegen.

Es zeigt sich, dass das Konzept der „selektiven Reproduktion“ die Handlungen der PND inakkurat repräsentiert. Es beinhaltet zudem sowohl eine Abstrahierung als auch eine Distanzierung. Es nimmt an, dass Frauen und Paare entweder falls nötig mehrere Schwangerschaften planen, um ein gesundes Kind zu erzeugen, oder sich als Ausführende einer selektiven Strategie auf der Populationsebene verstehen. Die Einschränkung der ethischen Diskussion auf das Problem der Selektion verdeckt zwei wichtige Problemfelder, die die konflikthaltige Situation der PND aus der Perspektive der Frau oder des Paares charakterisieren: die Schwangerschaft als persönliche Beziehung und den Akt des Abbruchs der Schwangerschaft. Aufgrund seiner impliziten Normativität wird „selektive Fortpflanzung“ als sinnvolle Bezeichnung für die Praxis der PND zurückgewiesen.

Access to Prenatal Testing and Ethically Informed Counselling in Germany, Poland and Russia

The development of new methods in the field of prenatal testing leads to an expansion of information that needs to be provided to expectant mothers. The aim of this research is to explore opinions and attitudes of gynecologists in Germany, Poland and Russia towards access to prenatal testing and diagnostics in these countries. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with n = 18 gynecologists in Germany, Poland and Russia. The interviews were analyzed using the methods of content analysis and thematic analysis. Visible in all three countries is a connection of prenatal medicine with the politically and socially contentious issue of pregnancy termination. Respondents in Poland and Russia concentrated on the topic of inadequate resources. Quality of information for expectant mothers is an important point in all three countries. Only in Germany was the issue of language barriers in communication raised. With regard to non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) respondents in Germany focused on the ethical issues of routinization of testing; in Poland and Russia they concentrated on fair access to NIPT. Challenges in all three countries arise from structural factors such as imprecise and prohibitive regulations, lack of resources or organization of healthcare services. These should be addressed on a political and medico-ethical level.

From late fatherhood to prenatal screening of monogenic disorders: evidence and ethical concerns

BACKGROUND

With the help of ART, an advanced parental age is not considered to be a serious obstacle for reproduction anymore. However, significant health risks for future offspring hide behind the success of reproductive medicine for the treatment of reduced fertility associated with late parenthood. Although an advanced maternal age is a well-known risk factor for poor reproductive outcomes, understanding the impact of an advanced paternal age on offspring is yet to be elucidated. De novo monogenic disorders (MDs) are highly associated with late fatherhood. MDs are one of the major sources of paediatric morbidity and mortality, causing significant socioeconomic and psychological burdens to society. Although individually rare, the combined prevalence of these disorders is as high as that of chromosomal aneuploidies, indicating the increasing need for prenatal screening. With the help of advanced reproductive technologies, families with late paternity have the option of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for multiple MDs (MD-NIPT), which has a sensitivity and specificity of almost 100%.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

The main aims of the current review were to examine the effect of late paternity on the origin and nature of MDs, to highlight the role of NIPT for the detection of a variety of paternal age-associated MDs, to describe clinical experiences and to reflect on the ethical concerns surrounding the topic of late paternity and MD-NIPT.

SEARCH METHODS

An extensive search of peer-reviewed publications (1980-2021) in English from the PubMed and Google Scholar databases was based on key words in different combinations: late paternity, paternal age, spermatogenesis, selfish spermatogonial selection, paternal age effect, de novo mutations (DNMs), MDs, NIPT, ethics of late fatherhood, prenatal testing and paternal rights.

OUTCOMES

An advanced paternal age provokes the accumulation of DNMs, which arise in continuously dividing germline cells. A subset of DNMs, owing to their effect on the rat sarcoma virus protein-mitogen-activated protein kinase signalling pathway, becomes beneficial for spermatogonia, causing selfish spermatogonial selection and outgrowth, and in some rare cases may lead to spermatocytic seminoma later in life. In the offspring, these selfish DNMs cause paternal age effect (PAE) disorders with a severe and even life-threatening phenotype. The increasing tendency for late paternity and the subsequent high risk of PAE disorders indicate an increased need for a safe and reliable detection procedure, such as MD-NIPT. The MD-NIPT approach has the capacity to provide safe screening for pregnancies at risk of PAE disorders and MDs, which constitute up to 20% of all pregnancies. The primary risks include pregnancies with a paternal age over 40 years, a previous history of an affected pregnancy/child, and/or congenital anomalies detected by routine ultrasonography. The implementation of NIPT-based screening would support the early diagnosis and management needed in cases of affected pregnancy. However, the benefits of MD-NIPT need to be balanced with the ethical challenges associated with the introduction of such an approach into routine clinical practice, namely concerns regarding reproductive autonomy, informed consent, potential disability discrimination, paternal rights and PAE-associated issues, equity and justice in accessing services, and counselling.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Considering the increasing parental age and risks of MDs, combined NIPT for chromosomal aneuploidies and microdeletion syndromes as well as tests for MDs might become a part of routine pregnancy management in the near future. Moreover, the ethical challenges associated with the introduction of MD-NIPT into routine clinical practice need to be carefully evaluated. Furthermore, more focus and attention should be directed towards the ethics of late paternity, paternal rights and paternal genetic guilt associated with pregnancies affected with PAE MDs.

Ethical, Legal and Social Issues (ELSI) Associated with Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing: Reflections on the Evolution of Prenatal Diagnosis and Procreative Choices

New technologies such as non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), capable of analyzing cell-free fetal DNA in the maternal bloodstream, have become increasingly widespread and available, which has in turn led to ethical and policy challenges that need addressing. NIPT is not yet a diagnostic tool, but can still provide information about fetal genetic characteristics (including sex) very early in pregnancy, and there is no denying that it offers valuable opportunities for pregnant women, particularly those at high risk of having a child with severe genetic disorders or seeking an alternative to invasive prenatal testing. Nonetheless, the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) include multiple aspects of informed decision-making, which can entail risks for the individual right to procreative autonomy, in addition to the potential threats posed by sex-selective termination of pregnancy (in light of the information about fetal sex within the first trimester), and the stigmatization and discrimination of disabled individuals. After taking such daunting challenges into account and addressing NIPT-related medicolegal complexities, the review's authors highlight the need for an ethically and legally sustainable framework for the implementation of NIPT, which seems poised to become a diagnostic tool, as its scope is likely to broaden in the near future.

The impact of insurance on equitable access to non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPT): private insurance may not pay

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), is a prenatal screening test for chromosomal aneuploidies (trisomy 21, trisomy 18, and trisomy 13). While women under 35 years of age with no other risk factors are considered low risk for pregnancies with aneuploidy, most babies with aneuploidy are born to low-risk women. Across the USA, including Wisconsin, many private insurances do not cover initial NIPT for low-risk women, creating a potential financial burden that may limit patient selection of NIPT. Low-risk women with public insurance in Wisconsin are covered for NIPT. This pilot study determined if a difference exists in NIPT uptake based on insurance type in low-risk pregnant women in their first trimester. It also explored genetic counselor perspectives on how insurance coverage for NIPT is addressed with patients. Women with public insurance were 3.43 times more likely to have NIPT as an initial screen for aneuploidy than women with private insurance, indicating that insurance coverage may present a barrier to care. Additionally, analysis showed no evidence of different demographic variables interacting with another to impact outcome after allowing for insurance coverage (X²14 = 14.301, p = 0.428). Our data also suggests that more genetic counselors would recommend NIPT to patients if insurance coverage was not a barrier and were more likely to discuss financial risks associated with NIPT when a patient had private insurance. We conclude that some women cannot choose one of the safest and most sensitive prenatal aneuploidy screening tests due to financial barriers put into place by the lack of insurance coverage.

Implementation challenges for an ethical introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals' views from Lebanon and Quebec

Background

The clinical introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidies is currently transforming the landscape of prenatal screening in many countries. Since it is noninvasive, safe and allows the early detection of abnormalities, NIPT expanded rapidly and the test is currently commercially available in most of the world. As NIPT is being introduced globally, its clinical implementation should consider various challenges, including the role of the surrounding social and cultural contexts. We conducted a qualitative study with healthcare professionals in Lebanon and Quebec as case studies, to highlight the relevance of cultural contexts and to explore the concerns that should be taken into account for an ethical implementation of NIPT.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 healthcare professionals (HCPs), 10 from each country, practicing in the field of prenatal screening and follow up diagnostic testing, including obstetricians and gynecologists, nurses, medical geneticists and, genetic counselors. We aimed to 1) explore HCPs’ perceptions and views regarding issues raised by NIPT and 2) to shed light on ways in which the introduction of the same technology (NIPT) in two different contexts (Lebanon and Quebec) raises common and different challenges that are influenced by the cultural norms and legal policies in place.

Results

We identified challenges to the ethical implementation of NIPT. Some are common to both contexts, including financial/economic, social, and organizational/ educational challenges. Others are specific to each context. For example, challenges for Lebanon include abortion policy and financial profit, and in Quebec challenges include lobbying by Disability rights associations and geographical access to NIPT.

Conclusions

Our findings highlight the need to consider specific issues related to various cultural contexts when developing frameworks that can guide an ethically sound implementation of NIPT. Further, they show that healthcare professional education and training remain paramount in order to provide NIPT counseling in a way that supports pregnant women and couples’ choice.

Noninvasive prenatal testing: from aneuploidy to single genes

Noninvasive prenatal testing has undergone rapid advances in the last few years. Although researchers have long known about circulating pregnancy-based cell-free fragments of DNA in maternal plasma, it was the introduction of massively parallel sequencing that allowed noninvasive prenatal testing to become a widely used clinical test. This review will begin with an in-depth analysis of the use of noninvasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy, including common causes for inaccurate and/or discordant results. It will also review the ongoing expansion of noninvasive prenatal testing to include copy number variants and select single-gene disorders. Finally, integrated throughout the review is a comparison of noninvasive prenatal testing to more traditional screening methods along with some medical and ethical implications of the widespread use of this new technology.