1
|
Siermann M, van der Schoot V, Bunnik EM, Borry P. Ready for polygenic risk scores? An analysis of regulation of preimplantation genetic testing in European countries. Hum Reprod 2024; 39:1117-1130. [PMID: 38514452 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deae049] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2023] [Revised: 02/19/2024] [Indexed: 03/23/2024] Open
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION Would the different regulatory approaches for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in Europe permit the implementation of preimplantation genetic testing using polygenic risk scores (PGT-P)? SUMMARY ANSWER While the regulatory approaches for PGT differ between countries, the space provided for potential implementation of PGT-P seems limited in all three regulatory models. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY PGT is a reproductive genetic technology that allows the testing for hereditary genetic disorders and chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation. Throughout its history, PGT has largely been regarded as an ethically sensitive technology. For example, ethical questions have been raised regarding the use of PGT for adult-onset conditions, non-medical sex selection, and human leukocyte antigen typing for the benefit of existing siblings. Countries in which PGT is offered each have their own approach of regulating the clinical application of PGT, and a clear overview of legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe is lacking. An emerging development within the field of PGT, namely PGT-P, is currently bringing new ethical tensions to the forefront. It is unclear whether PGT-P may be applied within the current regulatory frameworks in Europe. Therefore, it is important to investigate current regulatory frameworks in Europe and determine whether PGT-P fits within these frameworks. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the legal and practical regulation of the use of PGT in seven selected European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK) and critically analyse the different approaches with regards to regulatory possibilities for PGT-P. Between July and September 2023, we performed a thorough and extensive search of websites of governments and governmental agencies, websites of scientific and professional organizations, and academic articles in which laws and regulations are described. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS We investigated the legal and regulatory aspects of PGT by analysing legal documents, regulatory frameworks, scientific articles, and guidelines from scientific organizations and regulatory bodies to gather relevant information about each included country. The main sources of information were national laws relating to PGT. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE We divided the PGT regulation approaches into three models. The regulation of PGT differs per country, with some countries requiring central approval of PGT for each new indication (the medical indication model: the UK, the Netherlands), other countries evaluating each individual PGT request at the local level (the individual requests model: France, Germany), and countries largely leaving decision-making about clinical application of PGT to healthcare professionals (the clinical assessment model: Belgium, Italy, Spain). In the countries surveyed that use the medical indication model and the individual requests model, current legal frameworks and PGT criteria seem to exclude PGT-P. In countries using the clinical assessment model, the fact that healthcare professionals and scientific organizations in Europe are generally negative about implementation of PGT-P due to scientific and socio-ethical concerns, implies that, even if it were legally possible, the chance that PGT-P would be offered in the near future might be low. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The results are based on our interpretation of publicly available written information and documents, therefore not all potential discrepancies between law and practice might have been identified. In addition, our analysis focuses on seven-and not all-European countries. However, since these countries are relevant players within PGT in Europe and since they have distinct PGT regulations, the insights gathered give relevant insights into diverse ways of PGT regulation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that provides a thorough overview of the legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe. Our analysis of how PGT-P fits within current regulation models provides guidance for healthcare professionals and policymakers in navigating the possible future implementation of PGT-P within Europe. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 813707. The authors declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Siermann
- Centre of Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - V van der Schoot
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - E M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - P Borry
- Centre of Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bomhof CHC, Smids J, Sybesma S, Schermer M, Bunnik EM. Ethics of access to newly approved expensive medical treatments: multi-stakeholder dialogues in a publicly funded healthcare system. Front Pharmacol 2024; 14:1265029. [PMID: 38352693 PMCID: PMC10863042 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1265029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2023] [Accepted: 12/29/2023] [Indexed: 02/16/2024] Open
Abstract
Background: Due to rising healthcare expenditures, countries with publicly funded healthcare systems face challenges when providing newly approved expensive anti-cancer treatments to all eligible patients. In the Netherlands in 2015, the so-called Coverage Lock (CL), was introduced to help safeguard the sustainability of the healthcare system. Since then, newly approved treatments are no longer automatically reimbursed. Previous work has shown that as policies for access to CL treatments are lacking, patient access to non-reimbursed treatments is limited and variable, which raises ethical issues. The ethics of access were discussed in a series of multi-stakeholder dialogues in the Netherlands. Methods: Three dialogues were held in early 2023 and included physicians, health insurers, hospital executives, policymakers, patients, citizens, and representatives of pharmaceutical companies, patient and professional organizations. In advance, participants had received an 'argument scheme' featuring three models: 1) access based on third-party payment (e.g., by pharmaceutical companies, health insurers or hospitals) 2) access based on out-of-pocket payments by patients 3) no access to CL treatments. During the dialogues, participants were asked to discuss the merits of the ethical arguments for and against these models together, and ultimately to weigh them. The discussions were audio-taped, transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed. Results: Generally, most stakeholders were in favour of allowing access-at least when treatments are clearly beneficial-to treatments in the CL. When discussing third-party payment, stakeholders favoured payment by pharmaceutical companies over payment by health insurers or hospitals, not wanting to usurp collective funds while cost-effectiveness assessments are still pending. Largely, stakeholders were not in favour of out-of-pocket payments, emphasizing solidarity and equal access as important pillars of the Dutch healthcare system. Recurrent themes included the conflict between individual and collective interests, shifting attitudes, withholding access as a means to put pressure on the system, and the importance of transparency about access to CL-treatments. Conclusion: Policies for access to non-reimbursed treatments should address stakeholders' concerns regarding transparency, equal access and solidarity, and loss of potential health benefits for patients. Multi-stakeholder dialogues are an important tool to help inform policy-making on access to newly approved (too) expensive treatments in countries facing challenges to the sustainability of healthcare systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charlotte H. C. Bomhof
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
van Till SAL, Bunnik EM. The End of Personification: The Mereological Fallacy in Science Communication on Brain Organoids. Am J Bioeth 2024; 24:51-54. [PMID: 38236882 PMCID: PMC10805020 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2023.2278564] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/23/2024]
|
4
|
Vijlbrief B, Riedijk S, Bunnik EM. Public Engagement with Human Germline Editing Requires Specification. Am J Bioeth 2023; 23:77-79. [PMID: 38010670 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2023.2272922] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2023]
|
5
|
Vermeulen SF, Polak TB, Bunnik EM. Expanded access to investigational drugs in psychiatry: A systematic review. Psychiatry Res 2023; 329:115554. [PMID: 37890403 DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115554] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2023] [Revised: 10/17/2023] [Accepted: 10/18/2023] [Indexed: 10/29/2023]
Abstract
Some psychiatric patients have exhausted all approved treatment options. Numerous investigational drugs are currently being developed and tested in clinical trials. However, not all patients can participate in clinical trials. Expanded access programs may provide an opportunity for patients who cannot participate in clinical trials to use investigational drugs as a therapeutic option outside of clinical trials. It is unknown to what extent expanded access occurs in psychiatry. We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, Embase, and PscyInfo, with additional information from ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and FDA/EMA approvals, in order to find all expanded access programs ever conducted, globally, in the field of psychiatry. This resulted in a total of fourteen expanded access programs ever conducted in psychiatry. Given the prevalence of psychiatric disorders, the activity in clinical research in psychiatry, the regulatory framework enabling expanded access, and the impact of psychiatric disorders on patients, their families, and society, we had expected a higher utilization of expanded access. We propose that the psychiatric community, with pharmaceutical industry, should consider establishing and optimizing expanded access programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefan F Vermeulen
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; GGz Breburg, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
| | - Tobias B Polak
- Department of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Real-World Data Department, myTomorrows, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Bunnik EM, Smids J, Bomhof CHC. [Prioritisation in health care: An ethical perspective]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2023; 167:D7679. [PMID: 37823870] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/13/2023]
Abstract
Scarcity is an increasingly pressing problem currently in health care. To help address growing waiting lists, some hospitals in the Netherlands have begun applying triage of referrals for specialist care by primary care physicians: Which patients must be seen in the hospital, and which patients may just as well be treated in primary care settings? Does this new practice of more stringent triage fall within the scope of normal good care provision, or is something else - such as implicit rationing - at play? This paper analyses decision-making about care from an ethical perspective, using various justice theories, including utilitarianism, egalitarianism, sufficientarianism, and prioritarianism.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eline M Bunnik
- Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, afd. Medische Ethiek, Filosofie en Geschiedenis van de Geneeskunde
| | - Jilles Smids
- Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, afd. Medische Ethiek, Filosofie en Geschiedenis van de Geneeskunde
| | - Charlotte H C Bomhof
- Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, afd. Medische Ethiek, Filosofie en Geschiedenis van de Geneeskunde
- Contact: Charlotte H.C. Bomhof
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Bunnik EM. No need for options for choice for unsolicited findings in informed consent for clinical genetic testing. Eur J Hum Genet 2023; 31:1095-1096. [PMID: 37438414 PMCID: PMC10545690 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-023-01424-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2023] [Accepted: 06/29/2023] [Indexed: 07/14/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Wytemaweg 80, 3015 CN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Bronkhorst H, van Weerden WM, Bunnik EM, Zwart H. Awe and anxiety for cancer cells: connecting scientists and patients in a holistic approach of metastasis research. Res Involv Engagem 2023; 9:85. [PMID: 37752584 PMCID: PMC10523712 DOI: 10.1186/s40900-023-00498-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2023] [Accepted: 09/22/2023] [Indexed: 09/28/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Metastatic cancer is often experienced by patients as a death sentence. At the same time, translational scientists approach metastasis also as an interesting phenomenon that they try to understand and prevent. These two sides of the same coin do not mask the considerable gap that exists between the laboratory world of scientists and the life world of patients. Funding agencies nowadays increasingly demand researchers to be responsive to the values and priorities of patients and public. One approach to bridge this gap and to increase the impact of science is patient and public involvement (PPI). A concise literature review of PPI research and practice in this paper revealed that although PPI is often deployed in translational health care research, its methodology is not settled, it is not sufficiently emancipatory, and its implementation in basic and translational science is lagging behind. Here, we illustrate the practical implementation of PPI in basic and translational science, namely in the context of HOUDINI, a multidisciplinary network with the ultimate goal to improve the management of metastatic disease. METHODS This paper reports on a societal workshop that was organized to launch the holistic PPI approach of HOUDINI. During this workshop, societal partners, patients, and physicians discussed societal issues regarding cancer metastasis, and contributed to prioritization of research objectives for HOUDINI. In a later stage, the workshop results were discussed with scientists from the network to critically review its research strategy and objectives. RESULTS Workshop participants chose the development of metastasis prediction tools, effective therapies which preserve good quality of life, and non-invasive tissue sampling methods as most important research objectives for HOUDINI. Importantly, during the discussions, mutual understanding about issues like economic feasibility of novel therapies, patient anxiety for metastases, and clear communication between stakeholders was further increased. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, the PPI workshop delivered valuable early-stage input and connections for HOUDINI, and may serve as example for similar basic and translational research projects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hildert Bronkhorst
- Erasmus School of Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Wytske M. van Weerden
- Department of Experimental Oncology, Erasmus Medical Centre (Erasmus MC), Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eline M. Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre (Erasmus MC), Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hub Zwart
- Erasmus School of Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
de Jongh D, Thom RL, Cronin AJ, Bunnik EM, Massey EK. Clinical Translation of Bio-Artificial Pancreas Therapies: Ethical, Legal and Psychosocial Interdisciplinary Considerations and Key Recommendations. Transpl Int 2023; 36:11705. [PMID: 37789914 PMCID: PMC10543913 DOI: 10.3389/ti.2023.11705] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2023] [Accepted: 08/31/2023] [Indexed: 10/05/2023]
Abstract
The field of regenerative medicine offers potential therapies for Type 1 Diabetes, whereby metabolically active cellular components are combined with synthetic medical devices. These therapies are sometimes referred to as "bioartificial pancreases." For these emerging and rapidly developing therapies to be clinically translated to patients, researchers must overcome not just scientific hurdles, but also navigate complex legal, ethical and psychosocial issues. In this article, we first provide an introductory overview of the key legal, ethical and psychosocial considerations identified in the existing literature and identify areas where research is currently lacking. We then highlight two principal areas of concern in which these discrete disciplines significantly overlap: 1) individual autonomy and 2) access and equality. Using the example of beta-cell provenance, we demonstrate how, by harnessing an interdisciplinary approach we can address these key areas of concern. Moreover, we provide practical recommendations to researchers, clinicians, and policymakers which will help to facilitate the clinical translation of this cutting-edge technology for Type 1 Diabetes patients. Finally, we emphasize the importance of exploring patient perspectives to ensure their responsible and acceptable translation from bench to body.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dide de Jongh
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Rebecca L. Thom
- Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- King’s College, London, United Kingdom
| | - Antonia J. Cronin
- Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- King’s College, London, United Kingdom
| | - Eline M. Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Emma K. Massey
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Bomhof CHC, Bunnik EM. [Dilemmas regarding access to non-reimbursed treatments in the Netherlands: an ethical perspective]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2023; 167:D7580. [PMID: 37493339] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/27/2023]
Abstract
With the expected rise in healthcare costs, the growing burden of expensive treatments on healthcare budgets and the increasing emphasis on efficient uses of resources, physicians are increasingly confronted with ethical dilemmas regarding access to treatments which are not (yet) reimbursed within the basic healthcare package. In practice, physicians and hospital executives seem to have different experiences and perspectives regarding these dilemmas. While some physicians actively pursue access to non-reimbursed treatments, based on the values of beneficence and liberty, others do not, basing themselves on the values of solidarity and justice. This article provides an overview of the relevant ethical values, to enable physicians to make a well-considered decision when confronted with dilemmas regarding access to non-reimbursed treatments in the consultation room.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charlotte H C Bomhof
- Erasmus MC, Afd. Medische Ethiek, Filosofie en Geschiedenis van de Geneeskunde, Rotterdam
- Contact: Charlotte H.C. Bomhof
| | - Eline M Bunnik
- Erasmus MC, Afd. Medische Ethiek, Filosofie en Geschiedenis van de Geneeskunde, Rotterdam
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Smids J, Bunnik EM. Can Voluntary Health Insurance for Non-reimbursed Expensive New Treatments Be Just? Public Health Ethics 2023; 16:191-201. [PMID: 37547913 PMCID: PMC10401491 DOI: 10.1093/phe/phad015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2022] [Indexed: 08/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Public healthcare systems are increasingly refusing (temporarily) to reimburse newly approved medical treatments of insufficient or uncertain cost-effectiveness. As both patient demand for these treatments and their list prices increase, a market might arise for voluntary additional health insurance (VHI) that covers effective but (very) expensive medical treatments. In this paper, we evaluate such potential future practices of VHI in public healthcare systems from a justice perspective. We find that direct (telic) egalitarian objections to unequal access to expensive treatments based on different ability to afford VHI do not stand up to scrutiny. However, such unequal access might lead to loss of self-respect among individuals, or loss of fraternity within society, rendering it more difficult for citizens to interact on equal moral footing. This would be problematic from a relational egalitarian perspective. Moreover, the introduction of VHI might turn out to have negative consequences for the comprehensiveness and/or the quality of the public healthcare services that are offered to all patients equally through basic health insurance. These consequences must be weighed against potential health gains and the value of liberty. We conclude that governments should be careful when considering the introduction of VHI in public healthcare systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jilles Smids
- Corresponding author: Jilles Smids, Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Wytemaweg 80, 3015 CN Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: 00316-24923369;
| | - Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW There is no widely accepted single ethical principle for the fair allocation of scarce donor organs for transplantation. Although most allocation systems use combinations of allocation principles, there is a particular tension between 'prioritizing the worst-off' and 'maximizing total benefits'. It is often suggested that empirical research on public preferences should help solve the dilemma between equity and efficiency in allocation policy-making. RECENT FINDINGS This review shows that the evidence on public preferences for allocation principles is limited, and that the normative role of public preferences in donor organ allocation policy making is unclear. The review seeks to clarify the ethical dilemma to the transplant community, and draws attention to recent attempts at balancing and rank-ordering of allocation principles. SUMMARY This review suggests that policy makers should make explicit the relative weights attributed to equity and efficiency considerations in allocation policies, and monitor the effects of policy changes on important ethics outcomes, including equitable access among patient groups. Also, it draws attention to wider justice issues associated not with the distribution of donor organs among patients on waiting lists, but with barriers in referral for transplant evaluation and disparities among patient groups in access to waiting lists.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Vermeulen SF, Hordijk M, Visser RJ, Bunnik EM. Do Physicians Have a Duty to Discuss Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs with their Patients? A Normative Analysis. J Law Med Ethics 2023; 51:172-180. [PMID: 37226748 PMCID: PMC10209970 DOI: 10.1017/jme.2023.53] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/26/2023]
Abstract
Drawing on ethical and legal frameworks in the Netherlands, the United States and France, we examine whether physicians are expected to inform patients about potentially relevant opportunities for expanded access to investigational drugs. While we found no definitive legal obligation, we argue that physicians have a moral obligation to discuss opportunities for expanded access with patients who have run out of treatment options to prevent inequality, to promote autonomy, and to achieve beneficence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefan F Vermeulen
- DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ETHICS, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF MEDICINE, ERASMUS MC, UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTRE ROTTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS
- GGZ BREBURG, TILBURG, THE NETHERLANDS
| | - Marjolijn Hordijk
- DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ETHICS, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF MEDICINE, ERASMUS MC, UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTRE ROTTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS
| | - Ruben J Visser
- DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ETHICS, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF MEDICINE, ERASMUS MC, UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTRE ROTTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS
| | - Eline M Bunnik
- DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ETHICS, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF MEDICINE, ERASMUS MC, UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTRE ROTTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Raburn IC, Bunnik EM, Cronin AJ. Vulnerable person investigation plan (VIP) to optimise inclusion in clinical trials. J Med Ethics 2023:jme-2023-109053. [PMID: 37185105 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2023-109053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2023] [Accepted: 04/06/2023] [Indexed: 05/17/2023]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Eline M Bunnik
- Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Antonia J Cronin
- MRC Centre for Transplantation, Kings College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
van Till SAL, Bunnik EM. Symbolic Value of Brain Organoids: Shifting the Focus from Consciousness to Sociocultural Perspectives on Resemblance. AJOB Neurosci 2023; 14:210-212. [PMID: 37097872 DOI: 10.1080/21507740.2023.2188307] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/26/2023]
|
16
|
van Till SAL, Smids J, Bunnik EM. Access to effective but expensive treatments: An analysis of the solidarity argument in discussions on funding of medical treatments. Bioethics 2023; 37:111-119. [PMID: 36342118 PMCID: PMC10098599 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13108] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2021] [Revised: 07/01/2022] [Accepted: 10/13/2022] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
The development of new effective but expensive medical treatments leads to discussions about whether and how such treatments should be funded in solidarity-based healthcare systems. Solidarity is often seen as an elusive concept; it appears to be used to refer to different sets of concerns, and its interrelations with the concept of justice are not well understood. This paper provides a conceptual analysis of the concept of solidarity as it is used in discussions on the allocation of healthcare resources and the funding of expensive treatments. It contributes to the clarification of the concept of solidarity by identifying in the literature and discussing four uses of the concept: (1) assisting patients in need, (2) upholding the solidarity-based healthcare system, (3) willingness to contribute and (4) promoting equality. It distinguishes normative and descriptive uses of the concept and outlines the overlap and differences between solidarity and justice. Our analysis shows that the various uses of the concept of solidarity point to different, even conflicting, ethical stances on whether and how access to effective, expensive treatments should be provided. We conclude that the concept of solidarity has a role to play in discussions on the accessibility and funding of newly approved medical treatments. It requires, for instance, that healthcare policies promote and maintain both societal willingness to contribute to the care of others and the value of providing care to vulnerable patients through public funding.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sietske A. L. van Till
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MCUniversity Medical Centre RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
| | - Jilles Smids
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MCUniversity Medical Centre RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
| | - Eline M. Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MCUniversity Medical Centre RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Bunnik EM, Smedinga M, Milne R, Georges J, Richard E, Schermer MHN. Ethical Frameworks for Disclosure of Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers to Research Participants: Conflicting Norms and a Nuanced Policy. Ethics Hum Res 2022; 44:2-13. [PMID: 36316970 DOI: 10.1002/eahr.500146] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
More and more frequently, clinical trials for Alzheimer disease (AD) are targeting cognitively unimpaired individuals who are at increased risk of developing the disease. It is not always clear whether AD biomarker information should be disclosed to research participants: on the one hand, research participants may be interested in learning this information because of its perceived utility, but on the other hand, learning this information may be harmful, as there are very few effective preventive or therapeutic options available for AD. In this article, we bring together three separate sets of ethical guidance literature: on the return of individual research results, on an individual's right to access personal data, and on transparent enrollment into clinical trials. Based on these literatures, we suggest policies for the disclosure of AD biomarker test results in longitudinal observational cohort studies, clinical trials, and hybrid research projects, such as the European Prevention of Alzheimer's Dementia (EPAD) project, in which we served as an ethics team. We also present and critically discuss recommendations for disclosure of AD biomarkers in practice. We underscore that, as long as the clinical validity of AD biomarkers remains limited, there are good reasons to avoid actively disclosing them to cognitively unimpaired research participants.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eline M Bunnik
- Associate professor at the Erasmus University Medical Center in the Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine
| | - Marthe Smedinga
- Scientific secretary for the subcommittee on ethics and societal aspects at the Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification
| | - Richard Milne
- Sociologist of science, technology, and medicine, the head of research and dialogue at Wellcome Connecting Science, and the deputy director of the Kavli Centre for Ethics, Science, and the Public at the University of Cambridge
| | | | - Edo Richard
- Professor of neurology at Amsterdam University Medical Centre and a neurologist at the Department of Neurology at the Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour at Radboud University Medical Centre
| | - Maartje H N Schermer
- Professor of philosophy of medicine at the Erasmus University Medical Center in the Department of Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
de Jongh D, Massey EK, Cronin AJ, Schermer MHN, Bunnik EM. Early-Phase Clinical Trials of Bio-Artificial Organ Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Issues. Transpl Int 2022; 35:10751. [PMID: 36388425 PMCID: PMC9659568 DOI: 10.3389/ti.2022.10751] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2022] [Accepted: 10/07/2022] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Regenerative medicine has emerged as a novel alternative solution to organ failure which circumvents the issue of organ shortage. In preclinical research settings bio-artificial organs are being developed. It is anticipated that eventually it will be possible to launch first-in-human transplantation trials to test safety and efficacy in human recipients. In early-phase transplantation trials, however, research participants could be exposed to serious risks, such as toxicity, infections and tumorigenesis. So far, there is no ethical guidance for the safe and responsible design and conduct of early-phase clinical trials of bio-artificial organs. Therefore, research ethics review committees will need to look to related adjacent fields of research, including for example cell-based therapy, for guidance. In this systematic review, we examined the literature on early-phase clinical trials in these adjacent fields and undertook a thematic analysis of relevant ethical points to consider for early-phase clinical trials of transplantable bio-artificial organs. Six themes were identified: cell source, risk-benefit assessment, patient selection, trial design, informed consent, and oversight and accountability. Further empirical research is needed to provide insight in patient perspectives, as this may serve as valuable input in determining the conditions for ethically responsible and acceptable early clinical development of bio-artificial organs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dide de Jongh
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands,Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands,*Correspondence: Dide de Jongh,
| | - Emma K. Massey
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Antonia J. Cronin
- Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom,King’s College, London, United Kingdom
| | - Maartje H. N. Schermer
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Eline M. Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Bomhof CHC, Schermer M, Sleijfer S, Bunnik EM. Physicians' Perspectives on Ethical Issues Regarding Expensive Anti-Cancer Treatments: A Qualitative Study. AJOB Empir Bioeth 2022; 13:275-286. [PMID: 36017997 DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2022.2110963] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND When anti-cancer treatments have been given market authorization, but are not (yet) reimbursed within a healthcare system, physicians are confronted with ethical dilemmas. Arranging access through other channels, e.g., hospital budgets or out-of-pocket payments by patients, may benefit patients, but leads to unequal access. Until now, little is known about the perspectives of physicians on access to non-reimbursed treatments. This interview study maps the experiences and moral views of Dutch oncologists and hematologists. METHODS A diverse sample of oncologists and hematologists (n = 22) were interviewed. Interviews were analyzed thematically using Nvivo 12 qualitative data software. RESULTS This study reveals stark differences between physicians' experiences and moral views on access to anti-cancer treatments that are not (yet) reimbursed: some physicians try to arrange other ways of access and some physicians do not. Some physicians inform patients about anti-cancer treatments that are not yet reimbursed, while others wait for reimbursement. Some physicians have principled moral objections to out-of-pocket payment, while others do not. CONCLUSION Oncologists and hematologists in the Netherlands differ greatly in their perspectives on access to expensive anti-cancer treatments that are not (yet) reimbursed. As a result, they may act differently when confronted with dilemmas in the consultation room. Physicians working in different healthcare systems may face similar dilemmas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charlotte H C Bomhof
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maartje Schermer
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Stefan Sleijfer
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Dupras C, Bunnik EM. Response to Open Peer Commentaries on Toward a Framework for Assessing Privacy Risks in Multi-Omic Research and Databases. Am J Bioeth 2022; 22:W4-W6. [PMID: 35943524 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2022.2105436] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
|
21
|
Hordijk M, Vermeulen SF, Bunnik EM. The ‘false hope’ argument in discussions on expanded access to investigational drugs: a critical assessment. Med Health Care and Philos 2022; 25:693-701. [PMID: 35951276 PMCID: PMC9366814 DOI: 10.1007/s11019-022-10106-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2022] [Revised: 06/27/2022] [Accepted: 07/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
When seriously ill patients reach the end of the standard treatment trajectory for their condition, they may qualify for the use of unapproved, investigational drugs regulated via expanded access programs. In medical-ethical discourse, it is often argued that expanded access to investigational drugs raises ‘false hope’ among patients and is therefore undesirable. We set out to investigate what is meant by the false hope argument in this discourse. In this paper, we identify and analyze five versions of the false hope argument which we call: (1) the limited chance at benefit argument, (2) the side effects outweighing benefits argument, (3) the opportunity costs argument, (4) the impossibility of making informed decisions argument, and (5) the difficulty of gaining access argument. We argue that the majority of these five versions do not provide normative ground for disqualifying patients’ hopes as false. Only when hope is rooted in a mistaken belief, for example, about the likelihood of benefits or chances on medical risks, or when hope is directed at something that cannot possibly be obtained, should it be considered false. If patients are adequately informed about their odds of obtaining medical benefit, however small, and about the risks associated with an investigational treatment, it is unjustified to consider patients’ hopes to be false, and hence, to deny them access to investigational drug based on that argument.
Collapse
|
22
|
Abstract
Organoids are 3D structures grown from pluripotent stem cells derived from human tissue and serve as in vitro miniature models of human organs. Organoids are expected to revolutionize biomedical research and clinical care. However, organoids are not seen as morally neutral. For instance, tissue donors may perceive enduring personal connections with their organoids, setting higher bars for informed consent and patient participation. Also, several organoid sub-types, e.g., brain organoids and human-animal chimeric organoids, have raised controversy. This systematic review provides an overview of ethical discussions as conducted in the scientific literature on organoids. The review covers both research and clinical applications of organoid technology and discusses the topics informed consent, commercialization, personalized medicine, transplantation, brain organoids, chimeras, and gastruloids. It shows that further ethical research is needed especially on organoid transplantation, to help ensure the responsible development and clinical implementation of this technology in this field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dide de Jongh
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Emma K. Massey
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eline M. Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Bunnik EM, de Jongh D, Massey E. Ethics of Early Clinical Trials of Bio-Artificial Organs. Transpl Int 2022; 35:10621. [PMID: 35874305 PMCID: PMC9297460 DOI: 10.3389/ti.2022.10621] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2022] [Accepted: 06/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
Regenerative medicine is the new frontier in the field of organ transplantation. Research groups around the world are using regenerative medicine technologies to develop bio-artificial organs for transplantation into human patients. While most of this research is still at the preclinical stage, bio-artificial organ technologies are gearing up for first-in-human clinical trials in the not-too-distant future. What are the ethical conditions under which early-phase clinical research of bio-artificial organs can be conducted safely and responsibly? What lessons can be learned from prior experiences with early-phase clinical trials in adjacent fields of research? This is a Meeting Report of an online international workshop organised in the context of the Horizon 2020-funded VANGUARD project, which is developing a bio-artificial pancreas for the treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes.
Collapse
|
24
|
Smedinga M, Bunnik EM, Richard E, Schermer MHN. Should Doctors Offer Biomarker Testing to Those Afraid to Develop Alzheimer's Dementia? : Applying the Method of Reflective Equilibrium for a Clinical Dilemma. J Bioeth Inq 2022; 19:287-297. [PMID: 35306635 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-022-10167-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2020] [Accepted: 07/23/2021] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
An increasing number of people seek medical attention for mild cognitive symptoms at older age, worried that they might develop Alzheimer's disease. Some clinical practice guidelines suggest offering biomarker testing in such cases, using a brain scan or a lumbar puncture, to improve diagnostic certainty about Alzheimer's disease and enable an earlier diagnosis. Critics, on the other hand, point out that there is no effective Alzheimer treatment available and argue that biomarker tests lack clinical validity. The debate on the ethical desirability of biomarker testing is currently polarized; advocates and opponents tend to focus on their own line of arguments. In this paper, we show how the method of reflective equilibrium (RE) can be used to systematically weigh the relevant arguments on both sides of the debate to decide whether to offer Alzheimer biomarker testing. In the tradition of RE, we reflect upon these arguments in light of their coherence with other argumentative elements, including relevant facts (e.g. on the clinical validity of the test), ethical principles, and theories on societal ideals or relevant concepts, such as autonomy. Our stance in the debate therefore rests upon previously set out in-depth arguments and reflects a wide societal perspective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marthe Smedinga
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
- Department of Neurology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Reinier Postlaan 4, 6525 GC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Edo Richard
- Department of Neurology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Reinier Postlaan 4, 6525 GC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Maartje H N Schermer
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Smedinga M, Bunnik EM, Richard E, Schermer MHN. Correction to: Should Doctors Offer Biomarker Testing to Those Afraid to Develop Alzheimer's Dementia? J Bioeth Inq 2022; 19:299. [PMID: 35377092 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-022-10185-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Marthe Smedinga
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
- Department of Neurology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Reinier Postlaan 4, 6525 GC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Edo Richard
- Department of Neurology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Reinier Postlaan 4, 6525 GC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Maartje H N Schermer
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Bos W, Bunnik EM. Informed consent practices for exome sequencing: An interview study with clinical geneticists in the Netherlands. Mol Genet Genomic Med 2022; 10:e1882. [PMID: 35150093 PMCID: PMC8922961 DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.1882] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2021] [Revised: 12/21/2021] [Accepted: 01/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Genomic sequencing is being used more frequently in the clinic, not only by clinical geneticists, but also by other specialists ("mainstreaming"). The use of genomic sequencing gives rise to challenges regarding informed consent, as it can yield more, and more complex results. METHODS This study maps the informed consent process for exome sequencing in the Netherlands by means of semistructured interviews with 14 clinical geneticists. Interviewees were asked about their strategies for informing patients about exome sequencing and supporting patients in their decision making, about what they think of as essential information elements, about the challenges they experience, and about their preferences for future policy and practice. RESULTS Clinical geneticists typically discuss the following topics: the nature and aim of the test, the possible results (including unsolicited or incidental findings and Variants of Uncertain Significance) of the test and the consequences of those results for the patient and their family members. Some clinical geneticists use a layered approach to informed consent, meaning that they give short and concise information at first, and provide more detailed information depending on the situation or the needs of the patient. CONCLUSION During pre-test counseling for genomic sequencing, clinical geneticists use various strategies to enhance patient understanding and personalization of the informed consent process. Going forward, layering information may be part of a solution to ethical challenges of informed consent, also in mainstream settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wendy Bos
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of MedicineErasmus MC, University Medical Centre RotterdamRotterdamthe Netherlands
| | - Eline M. Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of MedicineErasmus MC, University Medical Centre RotterdamRotterdamthe Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Bunnik EM. Delineating the Scope of NIPT: Ethics Meets Practice. Am J Bioeth 2022; 22:34-36. [PMID: 35089835 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2021.2013984] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
|
28
|
Oerlemans AJM, Barendregt DMH, Kooijman SC, Bunnik EM. Impact of incidental findings on young adult participants in brain imaging research: an interview study. Eur Radiol 2022; 32:3839-3845. [DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08474-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2021] [Revised: 10/25/2021] [Accepted: 11/19/2021] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
|
29
|
Thom RL, Dalle-Ave A, Bunnik EM, Krones T, Van Assche K, Ruck Keene A, Cronin AJ. Inequitable Access to Transplants: Adults With Impaired Decision-Making Capacity. Transpl Int 2022; 35:10084. [PMID: 35368648 PMCID: PMC8971203 DOI: 10.3389/ti.2022.10084] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2021] [Accepted: 02/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
Inequitable access to deceased donor organs for transplantation has received considerable scrutiny in recent years. Emerging evidence suggests patients with impaired decision-making capacity (IDC) face inequitable access to transplantation. The "Ethical and Legal Issues" working group of the European Society of Transplantation undertook an expert consensus process. Literature relating to transplantation in patients with IDC was examined and collated to investigate whether IDC is associated with inferior transplant outcomes and the legitimacy of this healthcare inequality was examined. Even though the available evidence of inferior transplant outcomes in these patients is limited, the working group concluded that access to transplantation in patients with IDC may be inequitable. Consequently, we argue that IDC should not in and of itself be considered as a barrier to either registration on the transplant waiting list or allocation of an organ. Strategies for non-discrimination should focus on ensuring eligibility is based upon sound evidence and outcomes without reference to non-medical criteria. Recommendations to support policy makers and healthcare providers to reduce unintended inequity and inadvertent discrimination are set out. We call upon transplant centres and national bodies to include data on decision-making capacity in routine reporting schedules in order to improve the evidence base upon which organ policy decisions are made going forward.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Anne Dalle-Ave
- Ethics Unit, Institute of Humanities in Medicine, University Hospital of Lausanne, London, United Kingdom
| | - Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Tanja Krones
- Department of Clinical Ethics, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.,Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | | | - Alex Ruck Keene
- 39 Essex Chambers, London, United Kingdom.,King's College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Antonia J Cronin
- Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust and King's College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Bunnik EM, Bolt IL. Exploring the Ethics of Implementation of Epigenomics Technologies in Cancer Screening: A Focus Group Study. Epigenet Insights 2021; 14:25168657211063618. [PMID: 34917888 PMCID: PMC8669112 DOI: 10.1177/25168657211063618] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2021] [Accepted: 11/06/2021] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
New epigenomics technologies are being developed and used for the detection and prediction of various types of cancer. By allowing for timely intervention or preventive measures, epigenomics technologies show promise for public health, notably in population screening. In order to assess whether implementation of epigenomics technologies in population screening may be morally acceptable, it is important to understand – in an early stage of development – ethical and societal issues that may arise. We held 3 focus groups with experts in science and technology studies (STS) (n = 13) in the Netherlands, on 3 potential future applications of epigenomic technologies in screening programmes of increasing scope: cervical cancer, female cancers and ‘global’ cancer. On the basis of these discussions, this paper identifies ethical issues pertinent to epigenomics-based population screening, such as risk communication, trust and public acceptance; personal responsibility, stigmatisation and societal pressure, and data protection and data governance. It also points out how features of epigenomics (eg, modifiability) and changing concepts (eg, of cancer) may challenge the existing evaluative framework for screening programmes. This paper aims to anticipate and prepare for future ethical challenges when epigenomics technologies can be tested and introduced in public health settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ineke Lle Bolt
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Abstract
While the accumulation and increased circulation of genomic data have captured much attention over the past decade, privacy risks raised by the diversification and integration of omics have been largely overlooked. In this paper, we propose the outline of a framework for assessing privacy risks in multi-omic research and databases. Following a comparison of privacy risks associated with genomic and epigenomic data, we dissect ten privacy risk-impacting omic data properties that affect either the risk of re-identification of research participants, or the sensitivity of the information potentially conveyed by biological data. We then propose a three-step approach for the assessment of privacy risks in the multi-omic era. Thus, we lay grounds for a data property-based, 'pan-omic' approach that moves away from genetic exceptionalism. We conclude by inviting our peers to refine these theoretical foundations, put them to the test in their respective fields, and translate our approach into practical guidance.
Collapse
|
32
|
Bunnik EM, Smids J. Why Exceptional Public Investment in the Development of Vaccines Is Justified for COVID-19, But Not for Other Unmet Medical Needs. Am J Bioeth 2021; 21:22-25. [PMID: 34806964 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2021.1991044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
|
33
|
Bunnik EM, Siddiqui S, van Bruchem-Visser RL. Ethics of rooming-in with COVID-19 patients: Mitigating loneliness at the end of life. J Crit Care 2021; 67:182-183. [PMID: 34728128 PMCID: PMC8556592 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2021.09.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2021] [Accepted: 09/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam., Netherlands.
| | - Shahla Siddiqui
- Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
34
|
Smedinga M, Bunnik EM, Richard E, Schermer MHN. The Framing of "Alzheimer's Disease": Differences Between Scientific and Lay Literature and Their Ethical Implications. Gerontologist 2021; 61:746-755. [PMID: 33140824 PMCID: PMC8276613 DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnaa113] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2020] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and Objectives The meaning of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is changing in research. It now refers to a pathophysiological process, regardless of whether clinical symptoms are present. In the lay literature, on the other hand, AD is understood as a form of dementia. This raises the question of whether researchers and the lay audience are still talking about the same thing. If not, how will these different understandings of AD shape perspectives on (societal) needs for people with AD? Research Design and Methods We use framing analysis to retrieve the understandings of the term AD that are upheld in the research literature and in national Dutch newspaper articles. We make explicit how the framings of AD steer our normative attitudes toward the disease. Results In the analyzed research articles, AD is framed as a pathological cascade, reflected by biomarkers, starting in cognitively healthy people and ending, inevitably, in dementia. In the lay literature, AD is used as a synonym for dementia, and an AD diagnosis is understood as an incentive to enjoy “the time that is left.” Discussion and Implications The two different uses of the term AD in research and in the lay literature may result in misunderstandings, especially those research framings that falsely imply that people with AD biomarkers will inevitably develop dementia. Adoption of the research understanding of AD in clinical practice will have normative implications for our view on priority setting in health care. For example, it legitimizes biomarker testing in people without dementia as improving “diagnostic” certainty.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marthe Smedinga
- Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Neurology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Edo Richard
- Department of Neurology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Maartje H N Schermer
- Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Bunnik EM, Aarts N. The Role of Physicians in Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs: A Mixed-Methods Study of Physicians' Views and Experiences in The Netherlands. J Bioeth Inq 2021; 18:319-334. [PMID: 33590374 PMCID: PMC8324586 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-021-10090-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2019] [Accepted: 01/20/2021] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
Treating physicians have key roles to play in expanded access to investigational drugs, by identifying investigational treatment options, assessing the balance of risks and potential benefits, informing their patients, and applying to the regulatory authorities. This study is the first to explore physicians' experiences and moral views, with the aim of understanding the conditions under which doctors decide to pursue expanded access for their patients and the obstacles and facilitators they encounter in the Netherlands. In this mixed-methods study, semi-structured interviews (n = 14) and a questionnaire (n = 90) were conducted with medical specialists across the country and analysed thematically. Typically, our respondents pursue expanded access in "back against the wall" situations and broadly support its classic requirements. They indicate practical hurdles related to reimbursement, the amount of time and effort required for the application, and unfamiliarity with the regulatory process. Some physicians are morally opposed to expanded access, with an appeal to safety risks, lack of evidence, and "false hope." Some of these moral concerns and practical obstacles may be essential targets for change, if expanded access to unapproved drugs is to become available for wider groups of patients for whom standard treatment options are not-or no longer-available, on a more consistent and equal basis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Wytemaweg 80, 3015, CN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Nikkie Aarts
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Wytemaweg 80, 3015, CN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Affiliation(s)
- Tobias B Polak
- Department of Biostatistics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; RWD Department, myTomorrows, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy, and History of Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Bunnik EM, Dondorp WJ, Bredenoord AL, de Wert G, Cornel MC. Mainstreaming informed consent for genomic sequencing: A call for action. Eur J Cancer 2021; 148:405-410. [PMID: 33784533 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.02.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2021] [Accepted: 02/25/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
The wider availability of genomic sequencing, notably gene panels, in cancer care allows for personalised medicine or the tailoring of clinical management to the genetic characteristics of tumours. While the primary aim of mainstream genomic sequencing of cancer patients is therapy-focussed, genomic testing may yield three types of results beyond the answer to the clinical question: suspected germline mutations, variants of uncertain significance (VUS), and unsolicited findings pertaining to other conditions. Ideally, patients should be prepared beforehand for the clinical and psychosocial consequences of such findings, for themselves and for their family members, and be given the opportunity to autonomously decide whether or not to receive such unsolicited genomic information. When genomic tests are mainstreamed into cancer care, so should accompanying informed consent practices. This paper outlines what mainstream oncologists may learn from the ethical tradition of informed consent for genomic sequencing, as developed within clinical genetics. It argues that mainstream informed consent practices should focus on preparing patients for three types of unsolicited outcomes, briefly and effectively. Also, it argues that when the chance of unsolicited findings is very low, opt-out options need not be actively offered. The use of a layered approach - integrated in information systems - should render informed consent feasible for non-geneticist clinicians in mainstream settings. (Inter) national guidelines for mainstreaming informed consent for genomic sequencing must be developed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eline M Bunnik
- Erasmus MC, Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, PO Box 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Wybo J Dondorp
- Maastricht University, Dept of Health, Ethics and Society, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, PO Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| | - Annelien L Bredenoord
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Julius Center, Department of Medical Humanities, PO Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Guido de Wert
- Maastricht University, Dept of Health, Ethics and Society, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, PO Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| | - Martina C Cornel
- Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, BS7 Mail G102, PO Box 7057, 1007, MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Mezinska S, Gallagher L, Verbrugge M, Bunnik EM. Ethical issues in genomics research on neurodevelopmental disorders: a critical interpretive review. Hum Genomics 2021; 15:16. [PMID: 33712057 PMCID: PMC7953558 DOI: 10.1186/s40246-021-00317-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2020] [Accepted: 03/04/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Genomic research on neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), particularly involving minors, combines and amplifies existing research ethics issues for biomedical research. We performed a review of the literature on the ethical issues associated with genomic research involving children affected by NDDs as an aid to researchers to better anticipate and address ethical concerns. Results Qualitative thematic analysis of the included articles revealed themes in three main areas: research design and ethics review, inclusion of research participants, and communication of research results. Ethical issues known to be associated with genomic research in general, such as privacy risks and informed consent/assent, seem especially pressing for NDD participants because of their potentially decreased cognitive abilities, increased vulnerability, and stigma associated with mental health problems. Additionally, there are informational risks: learning genetic information about NDD may have psychological and social impact, not only for the research participant but also for family members. However, there are potential benefits associated with research participation, too: by enrolling in research, the participants may access genetic testing and thus increase their chances of receiving a (genetic) diagnosis for their neurodevelopmental symptoms, prognostic or predictive information about disease progression or the risk of concurrent future disorders. Based on the results of our review, we developed an ethics checklist for genomic research involving children affected by NDDs. Conclusions In setting up and designing genomic research efforts in NDD, researchers should partner with communities of persons with NDDs. Particular attention should be paid to preventing disproportional burdens of research participation of children with NDDs and their siblings, parents and other family members. Researchers should carefully tailor the information and informed consent procedures to avoid therapeutic and diagnostic misconception in NDD research. To better anticipate and address ethical issues in specific NDD studies, we suggest researchers to use the ethics checklist for genomic research involving children affected by NDDs presented in this paper. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40246-021-00317-4.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Mezinska
- Faculty of Medicine and Institute of Clinical and Preventive Medicine, University of Latvia, Jelgavas Str.3, Riga, LV-1004, Latvia.
| | - L Gallagher
- Discipline of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.,Trinity Translational Medicine Institute, St. James Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland
| | - M Verbrugge
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2400, Rotterdam, 3000, CA, The Netherlands
| | - E M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2400, Rotterdam, 3000, CA, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Bolt I, Bunnik EM, Tromp K, Pashayan N, Widschwendter M, de Beaufort I. Prevention in the age of personal responsibility: epigenetic risk-predictive screening for female cancers as a case study. J Med Ethics 2020; 47:medethics-2020-106146. [PMID: 33208479 PMCID: PMC8639925 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106146] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2020] [Revised: 08/18/2020] [Accepted: 08/23/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Epigenetic markers could potentially be used for risk assessment in risk-stratified population-based cancer screening programmes. Whereas current screening programmes generally aim to detect existing cancer, epigenetic markers could be used to provide risk estimates for not-yet-existing cancers. Epigenetic risk-predictive tests may thus allow for new opportunities for risk assessment for developing cancer in the future. Since epigenetic changes are presumed to be modifiable, preventive measures, such as lifestyle modification, could be used to reduce the risk of cancer. Moreover, epigenetic markers might be used to monitor the response to risk-reducing interventions. In this article, we address ethical concerns related to personal responsibility raised by epigenetic risk-predictive tests in cancer population screening. Will individuals increasingly be held responsible for their health, that is, will they be held accountable for bad health outcomes? Will they be blamed or subject to moral sanctions? We will illustrate these ethical concerns by means of a Europe-wide research programme that develops an epigenetic risk-predictive test for female cancers. Subsequently, we investigate when we can hold someone responsible for her actions. We argue that the standard conception of personal responsibility does not provide an appropriate framework to address these concerns. A different, prospective account of responsibility meets part of our concerns, that is, concerns about inequality of opportunities, but does not meet all our concerns about personal responsibility. We argue that even if someone is responsible on grounds of a negative and/or prospective account of responsibility, there may be moral and practical reasons to abstain from moral sanctions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ineke Bolt
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Krista Tromp
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nora Pashayan
- UCL Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Inez de Beaufort
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Richter G, Borzikowsky C, Lesch W, Semler SC, Bunnik EM, Buyx A, Krawczak M. Secondary research use of personal medical data: attitudes from patient and population surveys in The Netherlands and Germany. Eur J Hum Genet 2020; 29:495-502. [PMID: 33005018 PMCID: PMC7940390 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-020-00735-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2020] [Revised: 09/11/2020] [Accepted: 09/17/2020] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Making routine clinical-care-data available for medical research requires adequate consent to legitimize use and exchange. While, public interest in supporting medical research is increasing, individuals often find it difficult to actively enable researchers to access their data. In addition to broad consent, the idea of (consent-free) data donation has been brought into play as another way to legitimize secondary research use of medial data. However, flanking the implementation of broad consent policies or data donation, the attitude of patients, and the general public toward different aspects of these approaches needs to be assessed. We conducted two empirical studies to this end among Dutch patients (n = 7430) and representative German citizens (n = 1006). Wide acceptance of broad consent was observed among Dutch patients (92.3%), corroborating previous findings among German patients (93.0%). Moreover, 28.8% of the Dutch patients generally approved secondary data-use for non-academic research, 42.3% would make their decision dependent upon the type of institution in question. In the German survey addressing the general population, 78.8% approved data donation without explicit consent as an alternative model of legitimization, the majority of those who approved (96.7%) would allow donated data to be used by universities and public research institutions. This willingness to support contrasted sharply with the fact that only 16.6% would allow access to the data by industry. Our findings thus not only add empirical evidence to the debate about broad consent and data donation, but also suggest that widespread public discussion and education about the role of industry in medical research is necessary in that context.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gesine Richter
- Institute of Experimental Medicine, Division of Biomedical Ethics, Kiel University, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
| | - Christoph Borzikowsky
- Institute of Medical Informatics und Statistics, Kiel University, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | - Wiebke Lesch
- Technologies, Methods and Infrastructure for Networked Medical Research (TMF e.V.), Berlin, Germany
| | - Sebastian C Semler
- Technologies, Methods and Infrastructure for Networked Medical Research (TMF e.V.), Berlin, Germany
| | - Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Alena Buyx
- Institute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Michael Krawczak
- Institute of Medical Informatics und Statistics, Kiel University, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Dommershuijsen LJ, Darweesh SKL, Luik AI, Kieboom BCT, Koudstaal PJ, Boon AJW, Ikram MA, Ikram MK, Bunnik EM. Ethical Considerations in Screening for Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Behavior Disorder in the General Population. Mov Disord 2020; 35:1939-1944. [PMID: 32930445 DOI: 10.1002/mds.28262] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2020] [Accepted: 07/11/2020] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Clinical studies have shown that up to 90% of patients with idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (RBD) will eventually be diagnosed with a clinical α-synucleinopathy. Because of this high conversion rate, screening for RBD is often performed to identify eligible participants for studies aimed at elucidating the prodromal phase of α-synucleinopathies. However, screening for RBD, especially in the general population, raises many ethical dilemmas. In light of the existing ethical literature and our experience in establishing a screening approach for RBD in the Rotterdam Study, we discuss ethical dilemmas when screening for RBD in population-based studies. We conclude that informing study participants about the reason for invitation and the possible trajectory that lies ahead when participating is essential. However, participants should not be troubled unnecessarily by giving them detailed information about possible diagnoses or associated disease risks. © 2020 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisanne J Dommershuijsen
- Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sirwan K L Darweesh
- Department of Neurology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Annemarie I Luik
- Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Brenda C T Kieboom
- Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Peter J Koudstaal
- Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Agnita J W Boon
- Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M Arfan Ikram
- Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M Kamran Ikram
- Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Kater‐Kuipers A, de Beaufort ID, Galjaard RH, Bunnik EM. Rethinking counselling in prenatal screening: An ethical analysis of informed consent in the context of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). Bioethics 2020; 34:671-678. [PMID: 32621525 PMCID: PMC7586798 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12760] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2019] [Revised: 01/02/2020] [Accepted: 04/23/2020] [Indexed: 05/25/2023]
Abstract
Informed consent is a key condition for prenatal screening programmes to reach their aim of promoting reproductive autonomy. Reaching this aim is currently being challenged with the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in first-trimester prenatal screening programmes: amongst others its procedural ease-it only requires a blood draw and reaches high levels of reliability-might hinder women's understanding that they should make a personal, informed decision about screening. We offer arguments for a renewed recognition and use of informed consent compared to informed choice, and for a focus on value-consistent choices and personalized informational preferences. We argue for a three-step counselling model in which three decision moments are distinguished and differently addressed: (1) professionals explore women's values concerning whether and why they wish to know whether their baby has a genetic disorder; (2) women receive layered medical-technical information and are asked to make a decision about screening; (3) during post-test counselling, women are supported in decision-making about the continuation or termination of their pregnancy. This model might also be applicable in other fields of genetic (pre-test) counselling, where techniques for expanding genome analysis and burdensome test-outcomes challenge counselling of patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adriana Kater‐Kuipers
- Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of MedicineErasmus MC, University Medical Centre RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
| | - Inez D. de Beaufort
- Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of MedicineErasmus MC, University Medical Centre RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
| | - Robert‐Jan H. Galjaard
- Department of Clinical GeneticsErasmus MC, University Medical Centre RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
| | - Eline M. Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of MedicineErasmus MC, University Medical Centre RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Kater-Kuipers A, Bakkeren IM, Riedijk SR, Go ATJI, Polak MG, Galjaard RJH, de Beaufort ID, Bunnik EM. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): societal pressure or freedom of choice? A vignette study of Dutch citizens' attitudes. Eur J Hum Genet 2020; 29:2-10. [PMID: 32759960 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-020-0686-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2019] [Accepted: 06/15/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
The introduction of the accurate and procedurally easy non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) raises ethical concerns that public attitudes towards prenatal screening may change, leading to societal pressure to participate in aneuploidy screening. This study examined Dutch citizens' attitudes towards a pregnant woman's decision to (1) decline NIPT in the context of two different funding policies and (2) to terminate or continue a pregnancy affected by different disorders. The attitudes of 1096 respondents were assessed with the contrastive vignette method, using two pairs of vignettes about declining NIPT and termination of pregnancy. Most respondents either agreed with a woman's decision to decline NIPT or were neutral about it, stating that this decision should be made independently by women, and does not warrant judgement by others. Interestingly, funding policies did influence respondents' attitudes: significantly more respondents disagreed with declining NIPT when it was fully reimbursed. Respondents had similar attitudes to the vignettes on termination and continuation of pregnancy in case of Down's syndrome. In case of Edwards' or Patau's syndrome, however, significantly more respondents disagreed with continuation, citing the severity of the disorder and the child's best interests. This study demonstrates broad acknowledgement of women's freedom of choice in Dutch society; a finding that may help to rebut existing concerns about societal pressure for pregnant women to participate in prenatal screening. As the reimbursement policy and the scope of NIPT may influence people's attitudes and elicit moral judgements, however, maintaining freedom of choice warrants sustained efforts by health professionals and policy makers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adriana Kater-Kuipers
- Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Iris M Bakkeren
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sam R Riedijk
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Attie T J I Go
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marike G Polak
- Department of Psychology, Education & Child Studies (DPECS), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Robert-Jan H Galjaard
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Inez D de Beaufort
- Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Bunnik EM, Timmers M, Bolt IL. Ethical Issues in Research and Development of Epigenome-wide Technologies. Epigenet Insights 2020; 13:2516865720913253. [PMID: 32313869 PMCID: PMC7154555 DOI: 10.1177/2516865720913253] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2019] [Accepted: 02/14/2020] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
To date, few scholarly discussions on ethical implications of epigenetics and epigenomics technologies have focused on the current phase of research and development, in which researchers are confronted with real and practical ethical dilemmas. In this article, a responsible research and innovation approach, using interviews and an expert meeting, is applied to a case of epigenomic test development for cervical cancer screening. This article provides an overview of ethical issues presently facing epigenomics researchers and test developers, and discusses 3 sets of issues in depth: (1) informed consent; (2) communication with donors and/or research participants, and (3) privacy and publication of data and research results. Although these issues are familiar to research ethics, some aspects are new and most require reinterpretation in the context of epigenomics technologies. With this article, we aim to start a discussion of the practical ethical issues rising in research and development of epigenomic technologies and to offer guidance for researchers working in the field of epigenetic and epigenomic technology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marjolein Timmers
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ineke Lle Bolt
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Bunnik EM, Kater-Kuipers A, Galjaard RJH, de Beaufort ID. Should pregnant women be charged for non-invasive prenatal screening? Implications for reproductive autonomy and equal access. J Med Ethics 2020; 46:194-198. [PMID: 31527142 PMCID: PMC7042959 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105675] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2019] [Revised: 09/02/2019] [Accepted: 09/09/2019] [Indexed: 05/28/2023]
Abstract
The introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in healthcare systems around the world offers an opportunity to reconsider funding policies for prenatal screening. In some countries with universal access healthcare systems, pregnant women and their partners are asked to (co)pay for NIPT. In this paper, we discuss two important rationales for charging women for NIPT: (1) to prevent increased uptake of NIPT and (2) to promote informed choice. First, given the aim of prenatal screening (reproductive autonomy), high or low uptake rates are not intrinsically desirable or undesirable. Using funding policies to negatively affect uptake, however, is at odds with the aim of screening. Furthermore, copayment disproportionally affects those of lower socioeconomic status, which conflicts with justice requirements and impedes equal access to prenatal screening. Second, we argue that although payment models may influence pregnant women's choice behaviours and perceptions of the relevance of NIPT, the copayment requirement does not necessarily lead to better-informed choices. On the contrary, external (ie, financial) influences on women's personal choices for or against prenatal screening should ideally be avoided. To improve informed decision-making, healthcare systems should instead invest in adequate non-directive, value-focused pretest counselling. This paper concludes that requiring (substantial) copayments for NIPT in universal access healthcare systems fails to promote reproductive autonomy and is unfair.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eline M Bunnik
- Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Adriana Kater-Kuipers
- Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Robert-Jan H Galjaard
- Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Inez D de Beaufort
- Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Bakkeren IM, Kater-Kuipers A, Bunnik EM, Go ATJI, Tibben A, de Beaufort ID, Galjaard RJH, Riedijk SR. Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Netherlands: An interview study exploring opinions about and experiences with societal pressure, reimbursement, and an expanding scope. J Genet Couns 2019; 29:112-121. [PMID: 31710169 PMCID: PMC7041621 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1188] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2019] [Revised: 10/22/2019] [Accepted: 10/22/2019] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
The noninvasive prenatal test (NIPT) as the first trimester prenatal screening (FTS) for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 is offered to all pregnant women in the Netherlands. NIPT using genome sequencing allows for an expansion of the scope of FTS and the introduction of NIPT gives rise to ethical and societal concerns about deliberated decision‐making, pressure to engage in screening, and possible lack of equal access due to the financial contribution (€175) to NIPT. We explored the opinions and experiences of pregnant women, who were offered FTS, about these concerns, and the possibility of a broadened scope. Nineteen pregnant women representing a diversity of backgrounds were interviewed using a semi‐structured interview guide. Eight women did not opt for prenatal screening while 11 did (NIPT = 4, combined test = 7). Women experienced a free choice to accept or decline prenatal screening, despite sometimes receiving advice from others. Prior to pretest counseling, some women had already deliberated about what an abnormal test result would mean to them. Others accepted or declined FTS without deliberation. The current Dutch policy of requiring a co‐payment was acceptable to some, who believed that it functioned as a threshold to think carefully about FTS. Others were concerned that a financial threshold would lead to unequal access to screening. Finally, pregnant women found it difficult to formulate opinions on the scope of FTS, because of lack of knowledge. Life expectancy, severity, and treatability were considered important criteria for the inclusion of a condition in NIPT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Iris M Bakkeren
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Adriana Kater-Kuipers
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy of Medicine and Medical History, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy of Medicine and Medical History, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Attie T J I Go
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Aad Tibben
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Inez D de Beaufort
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy of Medicine and Medical History, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Robert-Jan H Galjaard
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sam R Riedijk
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Bunnik EM, Aarts N. What do patients with unmet medical needs want? A qualitative study of patients' views and experiences with expanded access to unapproved, investigational treatments in the Netherlands. BMC Med Ethics 2019; 20:80. [PMID: 31706313 PMCID: PMC6842468 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-019-0420-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2018] [Accepted: 10/22/2019] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients with unmet medical needs sometimes resort to non-standard treatment options, including the use of unapproved, investigational drugs in the context of clinical trials, compassionate use or named-patient programs. The views and experiences of patients with unmet medical needs regarding unapproved, investigational drugs have not yet been examined empirically. METHODS In this qualitative study, exploratory interviews and focus groups were held with patients with chronic or life-threatening diseases (n = 39), about topics related to non-standard treatment options, such as the search for non-standard treatment options, patients' views of the moral obligations of doctors, and the conditions under which they would or would not wish to use non-standard treatment options, including expanded access to unapproved, investigational drugs. RESULTS Respondents had very little knowledge about and/or experience with existing opportunities for expanded access to investigational drugs, although some respondents were actively looking for non-standard treatment options. They had high expectations of their treating physicians, assuming them to be aware of non-standard treatment options, including clinical trials elsewhere and expanded access programs, and assuming that they would inform their patients about such options. Respondents carefully weighed the risks and potential benefits of pursuing expanded access, citing concerns related to the scientific evidence of the safety and efficacy of the drug, side effects, drug-drug interactions, and the maintaining of good quality of life. Respondents stressed the importance of education and assertiveness to obtain access to good-quality health care, and were willing to pay out of pocket for investigational drugs. Patients expressed concerns about equal access to new and/or non-standard treatment options. CONCLUSION When the end of a standard treatment trajectory comes into view, patients may prefer that treating physicians discuss non-standard treatment options with them, including opportunities for expanded access to unapproved, investigational drugs. Although our respondents had varying levels of understanding of expanded access programs, they seemed capable of making well-considered choices with regard to non-standard treatment options and had realistic expectations with regard to the safety and efficacy of such options. Dutch patients might be less likely to fall prey to false hope than often presumed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Wytemaweg 80, 3015, CN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Nikkie Aarts
- Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Wytemaweg 80, 3015, CN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Bunnik EM. Let Us Not Take the Ethics Out of Innovative Practice: A Case Against Institutional Review. Am J Bioeth 2019; 19:36-38. [PMID: 31135310 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1602185] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
|
49
|
Bunnik EM, Richard E, Milne R, Schermer MHN. On the personal utility of Alzheimer's disease-related biomarker testing in the research context. J Med Ethics 2018; 44:830-834. [PMID: 30154216 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2018-104772] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2018] [Revised: 06/18/2018] [Accepted: 08/04/2018] [Indexed: 05/02/2023]
Abstract
Many healthy volunteers choose to take part in Alzheimer's disease (AD) prevention studies because they want to know whether they will develop dementia-and what they can do to reduce their risk-and are therefore interested in learning the results of AD biomarker tests. Proponents of AD biomarker disclosure often refer to the personal utility of AD biomarkers, claiming that research participants will be able to use AD biomarker information for personal purposes, such as planning ahead or making important life decisions. In this paper, the claim that AD biomarkers have personal utility for asymptomatic individuals is critically assessed. It demonstrates that in the absence of clinical validity, AD biomarkers cannot have personal utility and do not serve research participants' autonomy. Over the next few years, many research groups will be confronted with participants' preferences to learn the results of AD biomarker tests. When researchers choose to make results available upon explicit request, they should ensure adequate information provision and education, notably on the uncertain clinical significance of AD biomarker information. Routine disclosure of AD biomarkers to cognitively unimpaired individuals in research settings cannot be justified with an appeal to the personal utility of AD biomarker information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eline M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Edo Richard
- Department of Neurology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Richard Milne
- Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Maartje H N Schermer
- Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Kater-Kuipers A, Bunnik EM, de Beaufort ID, Galjaard RJH. Limits to the scope of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): an analysis of the international ethical framework for prenatal screening and an interview study with Dutch professionals. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018; 18:409. [PMID: 30340550 PMCID: PMC6194707 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-018-2050-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2017] [Accepted: 10/10/2018] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for foetal aneuploidies is currently changing the field of prenatal screening in many countries. As it is non-invasive, safe and accurate, this technique allows for a broad implementation of first-trimester prenatal screening, which raises ethical issues, related, for instance, to informed choice and adverse societal consequences. This article offers an account of a leading international ethical framework for prenatal screening, examines how this framework is used by professionals working in the field of NIPT, and presents ethical guidance for the expansion of the scope of prenatal screening in practice. Methods A comparative analysis of authoritative documents is combined with 15 semi-structured interviews with professionals in the field of prenatal screening in the Netherlands. Data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Results The current ethical framework consists of four pillars: the aim of screening, the proportionality of the test, justice, and societal aspects. Respondents recognised and supported this framework in practice, but expressed some concerns. Professionals felt that pregnant women do not always make informed choices, while this is seen as central to reproductive autonomy (the aim of screening), and that pre-test counselling practices stand in need of improvement. Respondents believed that the benefits of NIPT, and of an expansion of its scope, outweigh the harms (proportionality), which are thought to be acceptable. They felt that the out-of-pocket financial contribution currently required by pregnant women constitutes a barrier to access to NIPT, which disproportionally affects those of a lower socioeconomic status (justice). Finally, professionals recognised but did not share concerns about a rising pressure to test or discrimination of disabled persons (societal aspects). Conclusions Four types of limits to the scope of NIPT are proposed: NIPT should generate only test outcomes that are relevant to reproductive decision-making, informed choice should be (made) possible through adequate pre-test counselling, the rights of future children should be respected, and equal access should be guaranteed. Although the focus of the interview study is on the Dutch healthcare setting, insights and conclusions can be applied internationally and to other healthcare systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Kater-Kuipers
- Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Room 24.17, Wytemaweg 80, 3015 CN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - E M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Room 24.17, Wytemaweg 80, 3015 CN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - I D de Beaufort
- Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Room 24.17, Wytemaweg 80, 3015 CN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R J H Galjaard
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Wytemaweg 80, 3015 CN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|