Perceptions of reproductive healthcare providers regarding their involvement in offering expanded carrier screening in fertility clinics: a qualitative study.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the main arguments of reproductive healthcare providers in favour or against their involvement in offering expanded carrier screening (ECS) for recessive disorders at fertility clinics in the Netherlands? DESIGN: Semi-structured interview study with 20 reproductive healthcare providers between May 2020 and January 2021. Participants included 11 gynaecologists, seven fertility doctors, one nurse practitioner and one clinical embryologist, recruited from academic medical centres (n = 13), peripheral facilities associated with academic centres (n = 4), and independent fertility treatment centres (n = 3) in the Netherlands. An interview guide was developed, and thematic content analysis was performed using ATLAS.ti software. RESULTS: Arguments of reproductive healthcare providers in favour of their potential involvement in offering ECS included: (i) opportunities offered by the setting; (ii) motivation to assist in reproduction and prevent suffering; and (iii) to counter unwanted commercialization offers. Arguments against involvement included: (i) lack of knowledge and familiarity with offering ECS; (ii) insufficient staff and resources, and potential high costs for clinics and/or couples; (iii) the emotional impact it may have on couples; (iv) perceived complexity of counselling and expected elongation of waiting lists; and (v) expected low impact on reducing the burden of diseases. Participants felt that more evidence and research on the costs-benefits, implications and demand are needed prior to their involvement. CONCLUSION: While agreeing that the field of medically assisted reproduction provides a unique opportunity to offer ECS, reproductive healthcare workers feel a lack of capability and limited motivation to offer ECS to all or a selection of couples at their fertility clinics.

Potentiality switches and epistemic uncertainty: the Argument from Potential in times of human embryo-like structures.

Recent advancements in developmental biology enable the creation of embryo-like structures from human stem cells, which we refer to as human embryo-like structures (hELS). These structures provide promising tools to complement-and perhaps ultimately replace-the use of human embryos in clinical and fundamental research. But what if these hELS-when further improved-also have a claim to moral status? What would that imply for their research use? In this paper, we explore these questions in relation to the traditional answer as to why human embryos should be given greater protection than other (non-)human cells: the so-called Argument from Potential (AfP). According to the AfP, human embryos deserve special moral status because they have the unique potential to develop into persons. While some take the development of hELS to challenge the very foundations of the AfP, the ongoing debate suggests that its dismissal would be premature. Since the AfP is a spectrum of views with different moral implications, it does not need to imply that research with human embryos or hELS that (may) have 'active' potential should be completely off-limits. However, the problem with determining active potential in hELS is that this depends on development passing through 'potentiality switches' about the precise coordinates of which we are still in the dark. As long as this epistemic uncertainty persists, extending embryo research regulations to research with specific types of hELS would amount to a form of regulative precaution that as such would require further justification.

Uncertain futures and unsolicited findings in pediatric genomic sequencing: guidelines for return of results in cases of developmental delay.

BACKGROUND: Massively parallel sequencing techniques, such as whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), may reveal unsolicited findings (UFs) unrelated to the diagnostic aim. Such techniques are frequently used for diagnostic purposes in pediatric cases of developmental delay (DD). Yet policy guidelines for informed consent and return of UFs are not well equipped to address specific moral challenges that may arise in these children's situations. DISCUSSION: In previous empirical studies conducted by our research group, we found that it is sometimes uncertain how children with a DD will develop and whether they could come to possess capacities for autonomous decision-making in the future. Parents sometimes felt this brought them into a Catch-22 like situation when confronted with choices about UFs before undergoing WES in trio-analysis (both the parents' and child's DNA are sequenced). An important reason for choosing to consent to WES was to gain more insight into how their child might develop. However, to make responsible choices about receiving or declining knowledge of UFs, some idea of their child's future development of autonomous capacities is needed. This undesirable Catch-22 situation was created by the specific policy configuration in which parents were required to make choices about UFs before being sequencing (trio-analysis). We argue that this finding is relevant for reconfiguring current policies for return of UFs for WES/WGS and propose guidelines that encompass two features. First, the informed consent process ought to be staged. Second, differing guidelines are required for withholding/disclosing a UF in cases of DD appropriate to the level of confidence there is about the child's future developmental of autonomous capacities. CONCLUSION: When combined with a dynamic consent procedure, these two features of our guidelines could help overcome significant moral challenges that present themselves in the situations of children undergoing genomic sequencing for clarifying a DD.

The influence of the introduction of a national prenatal screening program on late termination of pregnancy, a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of a national prenatal screening program on category 1 (lethal anomalies) late terminations of pregnancy (LTOP). METHODS: In this population-based retrospective cohort study, we included all category 1 LTOPs from 2004 to 2015 in the Netherlands. The number of LTOPs before and after the introduction of the program was compared as well as the diagnostic process and factors contributing to LTOP. RESULTS: In total, 97 LTOPs were reported. After the introduction of the program, the number of LTOPs decreased from 17 per year to 5 per year on average. The number of cases in which the diagnostic process started with obstetric indications decreased from 55% to 17% (p < 0.01) and the number of cases detected by routine screening increased from 11% to 52% (p < 0.01). Four factors still contributed to LTOP after the introduction of the screening program: diagnostic or parental delay (40%), absence of screening (24%), false negative results of prior screening (14%) and late onset of disease (12%). CONCLUSION: The number of LTOPs decreased after the introduction of the screening program. At present, the diagnostic process is mostly screening driven. Parental- and diagnostic delay is still an important factor that contributes to LTOP.

Consanguineous couples' experiences and views regarding expanded carrier screening: Barriers and facilitators in the decision-making process.

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) entails a screening offer for multiple recessive disorders at the same time, and allows testing of individuals or couples regardless of ancestry or geographic origin. Children of consanguineous couples have a higher-than-average risk of manifesting autosomal recessive disorders. This study aims to contribute to the responsible implementation of ECS for consanguineous couples. Seven semi-structured interviews were conducted with consanguineous couples who had recently participated in Whole Exome Sequencing (WES)-based ECS at Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), the Netherlands. The test offered at MUMC+ covers a large number of disease-related genes (~2000), including severe, relatively mild, early- and late-onset disorders. Respondents were interviewed about their views on, and experiences with participation in WES-based ECS. Overall, participation was experienced as worthwhile: it enabled respondents to make informed choices with regard to family planning as well as to take on the presumed parental responsibility to deliver their children as healthy as possible. Furthermore, our findings suggest that (1) true consent for having this test requires timely information about the possible implications of a positive test result for specific categories of findings, as well as about the success rates of the available reproductive options; (2) the clinical geneticist can play a pivotal part in informing participants as well as providing clear information about autosomal recessive inheritance; (3) more research is needed to explore what type of genetic risk information is considered 'meaningful' by participants and actually contributes to reproductive decision-making.

Primary care professionals' views on population-based expanded carrier screening: an online focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Population-based expanded carrier screening (ECS) involves screening for multiple recessive diseases offered to all couples considering a pregnancy or during pregnancy. Previous research indicates that in some countries primary care professionals are perceived as suitable providers for ECS. However, little is known about their perspectives. We therefore aimed to explore primary care professionals' views on population-based ECS. METHODS: Four online focus groups with 14 general practitioners (GPs) and 16 community midwives were conducted in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Our findings highlight various perspectives on the desirability of population-based ECS. Participants agreed that ECS could enhance reproductive autonomy and thereby prevent suffering of the child and/or parents. However, they also raised several ethical, societal, and psychological concerns, including a tendency towards a perfect society, stigmatization, unequal access to screening and negative psychosocial consequences. Participants believed that provision of population-based ECS would be feasible if prerequisites regarding training and reimbursement for providers would be fulfilled. most GPs considered themselves less suitable or capable of providing ECS, in contrast to midwives who did consider themselves suitable. Nevertheless, participants believed that, if implemented, ECS should be offered in primary care or by public health services rather than as hospital-based specialized care, because they believed a primary care ECS offer increases access in terms of time and location. CONCLUSIONS: While participants believed that an ECS offer would be feasible, they questioned its desirability and priority. Studies on the desirability and feasibility of population-based ECS offered in primary care or public health settings are needed.

Societal implications of expanded universal carrier screening: a scoping review.

Carrier screening aims to identify couples at risk of conceiving children with a recessive condition. Until recently, carrier screening was primarily offered ancestry-based. Technological advances now facilitate expanded universal carrier screening (EUCS). This scoping review aimed to map EUCS's potential societal implications based on both theoretical studies and empirical evidence. To this aim, we performed a CoCites search to find relevant articles, including articles describing carrier screening for at-risk populations, based on five selected query articles. Forty articles were included. Three main potential societal implications were identified: (1) unwanted medicalization, (2) stigmatization and discrimination of carriers and people affected with the conditions screened and (3) challenges in achieving equitable access. Within these themes, potential positive implications are reduction of ethnic stigmatization in ancestry-based offers and increased equity. Potential negative implications are reinforcement of disability-based stigmatization, less possibility for developing expertise in healthcare and societal pressure to partake in screening. Empirical evidence on all these implications is however scarce. In conclusion, both positive and negative potential societal implications of implementing EUCS, primarily theoretical, were identified, even in at-risk groups where evidence is mostly lacking. Empirical research in EUCS pilots is needed to identify which societal implications are likely to occur and therefore should be overcome when implementing EUCS.

[Broadening NIPT needs more care]. / Zoeken naar 'nevenbevindingen'?

In a research setting (TRIDENT-2), Dutch pregnant women undergoing prenatal screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 with the Non-Invasive Prenatal Test (NIPT), are offered the choice to also receive information about incidental findings. In a recent report, the Health Council of the Netherlands has recommended to retain this option, but to only report those incidental findings that very probably will lead to serious health outcomes for the child. A working group has been appointed to draw up a guideline for this. In this article we argue that actively searching for desired 'incidental findings' in fact amounts to broadening the scope of the screening and that a justification of this choice is still lacking. A core issue is whether the benefits of such broader screening outweigh the drawback of inevitably also generating findings that do not fit in with the aim of the screening: providing meaningful reproductive choices.

Views of patients and parents of children with genetic disorders on population-based expanded carrier screening.

OBJECTIVE: Faster and cheaper next generation sequencing technologies have enabled expansion of carrier screening for recessive disorders, potentially facilitating population-based implementation regardless of ancestry or family history. Little is known, however, about the attitudes regarding population-based carrier screening among families with genetic disorders. This study assessed views among parents and patients with a recessive disorder and parents of children with Down syndrome (DS) on expanded carrier screening (ECS). METHOD: In total, 85 patients with various recessive disorders, 110 parents of a child with a recessive disorder and 89 parents of a child with DS participated in an online survey in the Netherlands. Severity of recessive disorders was classified as mild/moderate or severe/profound. RESULTS: The majority of the (parents of) patients with a recessive disorder had a positive attitude towards population-based ECS, including screening for their own or their child's disorder. DS parents were significantly less positive towards ECS. Subgroup analyses showed that the severity of the disorder, rather than being a patient or parent, influences the attitudes, beliefs and intention to participate in ECS. CONCLUSION: Our findings have important implications for future implementation initiatives as they demonstrate the different perspectives from people with experiential knowledge with genetic disorders.

The case for screening in early life for 'non-treatable' disorders: ethics, evidence and proportionality. A report from the Health Council of the Netherlands.

In the Netherlands, the call to add 'non-treatable' disorders to the newborn bloodspot screening programme has found a sympathetic ear with the Government. In 2019, the Health Council of the Netherlands was formally asked for advice on the conditions under which bloodspot screening for such disorders might be offered. Here we present the reasoning and the recommendations of the resulting report, and briefly discuss its reception. The report holds on to the classical view that screening must benefit the child, but argues for a wider account of child benefit than only in terms of substantial health gains. However, screening for 'non-treatable' disorders would still require evidence of a favourable benefits to harm ratio. The report presents a framework for such screening, but concludes that apart perhaps from Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), no or only very few 'non-treatable' disorders would at present meet its criteria. Setting up a screening programme that might benefit only a small percentage of families struggling with uncertainty about their child's diagnosis would not seem proportional. Instead, the Government is advised to invest in a better infrastructure for early referral, testing and care. The reaction to the report from proponents of such screening shows that the dividing line in the debate is not about whether screening neonates for 'non-treatable' disorders is acceptable in itself. It is rather whether such screening should be regarded as catering to a parental 'right to know', or as a public health service that should be subject to standards of evidence and proportionality.

[Is germ-line genome modification ethically justified?] / Is kiembaanmodificatie ethisch verantwoord?

As the normative objections to (human) germline genome editing cannot convincingly justify a categorical prohibition of such editing, its present prohibition should be replaced by a strict regulation, i.e. a conditional allowance. If safe and effective, germline genome editing may become a useful reproductive option.

Expanding Neonatal Bloodspot Screening: A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective.

Neonatal bloodspot screening (NBS) aims to detect treatable disorders in newborns. The number of conditions included in the screening is expanding through technological and therapeutic developments, which can result in health gain for more newborns. NBS expansion, however, also poses healthcare, ethical and societal challenges. This qualitative study explores a multi-stakeholders' perspective on current and future expansions of NBS. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 Dutch professionals, including healthcare professionals, test developers and policy makers, and 17 parents of children with normal and abnormal NBS results. Addressed themes were (1) benefits and challenges of current expansion, (2) expectations regarding future developments, and (3) NBS acceptance and consent procedures. Overall, participants had a positive attitude toward NBS expansion, as long as it is aimed at detecting treatable disorders and achieving health gain. Concerns were raised regarding an increase in results of uncertain significance, diagnosing asymptomatic mothers, screening of subgroups ("males only"), finding untreatable disorders, along with increasingly complex consent procedures. Regarding the scope of future NBS expansions, two types of stakeholder perspectives emerged. Stakeholders with a "targeted-scope" perspective saw health gain for the neonate as the exclusive NBS aim. They thought pre-test information could be limited, and parents should be protected against too much options or information. Stakeholders with a "broad-scope" perspective thought the NBS aim should be formulated broader, for example, also taking (reproductive) life planning into account. They put more emphasis on individual preferences and parental autonomy. Policy-makers should engage with both perspectives when making further decisions about NBS.

Towards a Responsible Transition to Learning Healthcare Systems in Precision Medicine: Ethical Points to Consider.

Learning healthcare systems have recently emerged as a strategy to continuously use experiences and outcomes of clinical care for research purposes in precision medicine. Although it is known that learning healthcare transitions in general raise important ethical challenges, the ethical ramifications of such transitions in the specific context of precision medicine have not extensively been discussed. Here, we describe three levers that institutions can pull to advance learning healthcare systems in precision medicine: (1) changing testing of individual variability (such as genes); (2) changing prescription of treatments on the basis of (genomic) test results; and/or (3) changing the handling of data that link variability and treatment to clinical outcomes. Subsequently, we evaluate how patients can be affected if one of these levers are pulled: (1) patients are tested for different or more factors than before the transformation, (2) patients receive different treatments than before the transformation and/or (3) patients' data obtained through clinical care are used, or used more extensively, for research purposes. Based on an analysis of the aforementioned mechanisms and how these potentially affect patients, we analyze why learning healthcare systems in precision medicine need a different ethical approach and discuss crucial points to consider regarding this approach.

Mainstreaming informed consent for genomic sequencing: A call for action.

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.

Stakeholder views on opportunistic genomic screening in the Netherlands: a qualitative study.

Genome sequencing can be used to actively search for genetic variants unrelated to the initial clinical question. While such 'opportunistic genomic screening' (OGS) has been proposed in the USA, a European discussion on the ethics of OGS is only starting. Should testing for selected 'secondary findings' be offered to patients who need genetic sequencing? Using focus groups and interviews, we explored views on OGS in adults and minors from three perspectives: policy experts (n = 9), health professionals (n = 8) and patient representatives (n = 7). A thematic approach was used to analyze the data. There was consensus that OGS should be evaluated in terms of the classical 'screening' framework, rather than as a form of 'good patient care'. Accordingly, stakeholders agreed that professionals do not have a 'fiduciary duty' to look for secondary findings. Adding screening to clinical care was only conceivable with the patient's informed consent. In general, stakeholders were reluctant towards OGS. Arguments for regarding OGS being premature included lack of evidence regarding its clinical utility, also in view of uncertainties regarding general population penetrance, and concerns about both its psychosocial impact and respect for autonomy. All groups agreed that OGS means unequal access, which was seen as problematic. Yet, despite their concerns, stakeholders felt that offering screening for certain actionable pathogenic variants with known high penetrance could potentially be valuable in certain contexts for both adults and minors. Pharmacogenetic variants were regarded as a category by itself, for which OGS could potentially be beneficial.

Parents, their children, whole exome sequencing and unsolicited findings: growing towards the child's future autonomy.

In a previous study we found that parents of children with developmental delay (DD) favoured acceptance of unsolicited findings (UFs) for medically actionable conditions in childhood, but that preferences diverged for UFs with no medical actionability, or only in adulthood, and regarding carrier status. Sometimes the child's future autonomy formed a reason for withholding UFs for the present, despite an unfavourable prognosis concerning the child's cognitive capabilities. This might be different for children undergoing whole exome sequencing (WES) for reasons other than DD and who are expected to exert future autonomy. This is the focus of the current study. We conducted nine qualitative, semi-structured interviews with parents of children, ages <1-15, after consenting to WES, but prior to feedback of results, and with three adolescent children. Several parents wished to receive any information that might in whatever way be relevant to the health and well-being of their child, and to a lesser extent wished the inclusion of information about non-actionable disorders and information concerning carrier status of autosomal recessive disorders. Although parents understood the rationale behind the centre's UFs disclosure policy, they also felt that they needed this information in order to be able to exert their parental responsibility and take good care of a child still dependent on them. Parents reason from their notion of parental responsibility but are also inclined to take adolescent children's preferences seriously and acknowledge the child's incipient autonomy as a ground for granting an increasing degree of self-determination on the road to adulthood.

Opportunistic genomic screening. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics.

If genome sequencing is performed in health care, in theory the opportunity arises to take a further look at the data: opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). The European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) in 2013 recommended that genome analysis should be restricted to the original health problem at least for the time being. Other organizations have argued that 'actionable' genetic variants should or could be reported (including American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine, Genomics England). They argue that the opportunity should be used to routinely and systematically look for secondary findings-so-called opportunistic screening. From a normative perspective, the distinguishing characteristic of screening is not so much its context (whether public health or health care), but the lack of an indication for having this specific test or investigation in those to whom screening is offered. Screening entails a more precarious benefits-to-risks balance. The ESHG continues to recommend a cautious approach to opportunistic screening. Proportionality and autonomy must be guaranteed, and in collectively funded health-care systems the potential benefits must be balanced against health care expenditures. With regard to genome sequencing in pediatrics, ESHG argues that it is premature to look for later-onset conditions in children. Counseling should be offered and informed consent is and should be a central ethical norm. Depending on developing evidence on penetrance, actionability, and available resources, OGS pilots may be justified to generate data for a future, informed, comparative analysis of OGS and its main alternatives, such as cascade testing.

Follow-up in the field of reproductive medicine: an ethical exploration.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What ethical implications, issues and concerns play a role in conducting follow-up studies of children born after assisted reproductive technologies (ART)? DESIGN: Literature study and relevant experiences of academic medical centres in Brussels, Belgium, and Maastricht, the Netherlands were used to identify and analyse the most pertinent ethical implications, issues and concerns. RESULTS: According to recommendations from the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, follow-up (ideally long term) of children conceived through medically assisted reproduction (MAR) should be an integral part of introducing new ART. With potentially risky new ART on the horizon, these recommendations need to be taken more seriously. Apart from practical barriers, such as funding, challenges for follow-up include securing active involvement of families of children conceived through MAR, starting with parents of young children, and ideally involving consenting adolescents and adults during a large part of their lives, possibly even into the next generation. CONCLUSIONS: From an ethical viewpoint, the most pertinent issues include the proportionality of the inevitable burdens and risks for families of children conceived through MAR, and the implications of the principle of respect for autonomy. The proportionality requirement is most critical when it concerns incompetent children, who should not be included in research with more than minimal burdens and risks if there is no reasonable expectation of benefit for themselves. With respect for autonomy, we argue that, when seeking voluntary consent for participating in follow-up studies that meet the condition of proportionality, professionals may encourage members of families of children conceived through MAR to partake in follow-up research.