Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 103
Filter
1.
Reprod Biomed Online ; 49(1): 103857, 2024 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38643517

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Fertility Clinics , Genetic Carrier Screening , Qualitative Research , Humans , Female , Genetic Carrier Screening/methods , Male , Health Personnel/psychology , Netherlands , Adult , Genetic Counseling/psychology
2.
Med Health Care Philos ; 27(1): 37-48, 2024 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37902931

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Beginning of Human Life , Embryo Research , Humans , Uncertainty , alpha-Fetoproteins , Moral Obligations , Embryo, Mammalian
3.
Prenat Diagn ; 43(8): 1079-1087, 2023 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37277891

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Abortion, Induced , Delayed Diagnosis , Pregnancy , Female , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Prenatal Diagnosis/methods , Abortion, Induced/methods , Netherlands/epidemiology
4.
Fam Pract ; 2023 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36722294

ABSTRACT

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.

5.
BMC Med Ethics ; 24(1): 98, 2023 11 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37951889

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Informed Consent , Parents , Child , Humans , Whole Genome Sequencing , Uncertainty , Genomics
6.
Prenat Diagn ; 42(9): 1201-1210, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35734853

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Mass Screening , Parents , Child , Family , Genetic Carrier Screening , Humans , Surveys and Questionnaires
7.
Reprod Biomed Online ; 41(6): 1144-1150, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32967810

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Child Development/physiology , Monitoring, Physiologic , Reproductive Medicine/ethics , Adult , Belgium , Biomedical Research/ethics , Child , Child, Preschool , Confidentiality/ethics , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Informed Consent , Male , Monitoring, Physiologic/ethics , Netherlands , Personal Autonomy , Pregnancy , Reproductive Medicine/methods , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted/ethics
9.
Bioethics ; 33(2): 294-301, 2019 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30474145

ABSTRACT

Many European countries uphold a 'high risk of a serious condition' requirement for limiting the scope of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). This 'front door' rule should be loosened to account for forms of PGD with a divergent proportionality. This applies to both 'added PGD' (aPGD), as an add-on to in vitro fertilization (IVF), and 'combination PGD' (cPGD), for a secondary disorder in addition to the one for which the applicants have an accepted PGD indication. Thus loosening up at the front has implications at the back of PGD treatment, where a further PGD rule says that 'affected embryos' (in the sense of embryos with the targeted mutation or abnormality) should not be transferred to the womb. This 'back door' rule should be loosened to allow for transferring 'last chance' affected embryos in aPGD and cPGD cases, provided this does not entail a high risk that the child will have a seriously diminished quality of life.


Subject(s)
Bioethical Issues , Genetic Diseases, Inborn/diagnosis , Genetic Testing/ethics , Health Services Accessibility/ethics , Preimplantation Diagnosis/ethics , Comorbidity , Early Diagnosis , Embryo Implantation , Embryology/ethics , Ethics, Medical , Europe , Female , Fertilization in Vitro , Fetal Diseases/genetics , Fetal Diseases/therapy , Fetus , Genetic Diseases, Inborn/embryology , Genetic Diseases, Inborn/therapy , Humans , Pregnancy , Quality of Life , Risk Assessment
10.
Bioethics ; 33(1): 68-75, 2019 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30182368

ABSTRACT

In vitro gametogenesis (IVG) is believed to be the next big breakthrough in reproductive medicine. The prima facie acceptance of this possible future technology is notable when compared to the general prohibition on human reproductive cloning. After all, if safety is the main reason for not allowing reproductive cloning, one might expect a similar conclusion for the reproductive application of IVG, since both technologies hold considerable and comparable risks. However, safety concerns may be overcome, and are presumably not the sole reason why cloning is being condemned. We therefore assess the non-safety arguments against reproductive cloning, yet most of these can also be held against IVG. The few arguments that cannot be used against IVG are defective. We conclude from this that it will be hard to defend a ban on reproductive cloning while accepting the reproductive use of IVG.


Subject(s)
Cloning, Organism/ethics , Gametogenesis , Genetic Engineering/ethics , Germ Cells , Reproduction/ethics , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted/ethics , Stem Cells , Child , Cloning, Organism/legislation & jurisprudence , Dissent and Disputes , Genetic Engineering/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Parents , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted/legislation & jurisprudence , Social Control, Formal
11.
Bioethics ; 33(5): 568-576, 2019 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30734373

ABSTRACT

Expanded universal carrier screening (EUCS) entails a population-wide screening offer for multiple disease-causing mutations simultaneously. Although there is much debate about the conditions under which EUCS can responsibly be introduced, there seems to be little discussion about its aim: providing carrier couples with options for autonomous reproductive choice. While this links in with current accounts of the aim of foetal anomaly screening, it is different from how the aim of ancestry-based carrier screening has traditionally been understood: reducing the disease burden in the population. The reasons why the aim of EUCS is presented in terms of 'autonomy' rather than 'prevention' have not been spelled out in the literature. This paper seeks to fill this gap by considering the morally relevant similarities and dissimilarities between foetal anomaly screening, ancestry-based carrier screening and EUCS. When carrier screening is performed in the prenatal period, enhancing autonomy appears the most appropriate aim of EUCS, as the alternative of 'prevention through selective abortion' would urge women to terminate wanted pregnancies. However, when screening is conducted in the preconception period, carrier couples can avoid the birth of affected children by other means than selective abortion, for instance preimplantation genetic diagnosis. To the extent that this increased control over passing on a genetic disorder raises questions of parental responsibility, it seems necessary that the account of the aims of EUCS is wider than only in terms of enhancing reproductive autonomy.


Subject(s)
Genetic Carrier Screening/ethics , Heterozygote , Moral Obligations , Parents , Personal Autonomy , Beneficence , Female , Humans , Male , Preconception Care , Pregnancy , Prenatal Diagnosis , Reproductive Rights/ethics
12.
Health Care Anal ; 27(4): 309-321, 2019 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31309357

ABSTRACT

International guidelines recommend that prenatal screening for fetal abnormalities should only be offered within a non-directive framework aimed at enabling women in making meaningful reproductive choices. Whilst this position is widely endorsed, developments in cell-free fetal DNA based Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing are now raising questions about its continued suitability for guiding screening policy and practice. This issue is most apparent within debates on the scope of the screening offer. Implied by the aim of enabling meaningful reproductive choices is the idea that screening services should support women in accessing prenatal tests that best enable them to realize the types of reproductive choice that they find important. However, beyond whatever options meet the quality standards required for facilitating an informed decision, the remaining criteria of facilitating autonomous choice is strictly non-directive. As a result, policy makers receive little indication prior to consultation with each individual woman, about what conditions should be prioritized during the offer of screening. In this paper we try to address this issue by using the capabilities approach to further specify the non-directive aim of enabling meaningful reproductive choice. The resulting framework is then used to assess the relative importance of offering prenatal screening where concerning different types of genetic condition. We conclude that greater priority may be ascribed to offering prenatal screening for conditions that more significantly diminish a woman's central capabilities. It follows that serious congenital and earlier-onset conditions are more likely to fulfill these criteria.


Subject(s)
Decision Making/ethics , Genetic Testing , Personal Autonomy , Prenatal Diagnosis , Adult , Female , Genetic Counseling , Humans , Pregnancy
13.
Camb Q Healthc Ethics ; 28(3): 499-508, 2019 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31298196

ABSTRACT

Research into the development of stem cell-derived (SCD) gametes in humans, otherwise known as in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), is largely motivated by reproductive aims. Especially, the goal of establishing genetic parenthood by means of SCD-gametes is considered an important aim. However, like other applications in the field of assisted reproduction, this technology evokes worries about the possibility of creating so-called 'designer babies.' In this paper, we investigate various ways in which SCD-gametes could be used to create such preference-matched offspring, and what this would mean for the acceptability of IVG, if it is premised that it is morally problematic to 'design' offspring. We argue that IVG might facilitate the creation of preference-matched offspring, but conclude that this should not undermine the moral acceptability of IVG altogether-even if one concedes the premise that creating 'designer babies' is morally problematic. In the light of this, we also point at a possible inconsistency for a position that condemns the creation of 'designer offspring,' while accepting the various endeavors to have genetically related offspring.


Subject(s)
Fertilization in Vitro/ethics , Gametogenesis , Gene Editing/ethics , Humans , Stem Cells
14.
Med Health Care Philos ; 22(4): 545-555, 2019 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30771074

ABSTRACT

Developments in Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) and cell-free fetal DNA analysis raise the possibility that antenatal services may soon be able to support couples in non-invasively testing for, and diagnosing, an unprecedented range of genetic disorders and traits coded within their unborn child's genome. Inevitably, this has prompted debate within the bioethics literature about what screening options should be offered to couples for the purpose of reproductive choice. In relation to this problem, the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) and American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) tentatively recommend that any expansion of this type of screening, as facilitated by NIPT, should be limited to serious congenital and childhood disorders. In support of this recommendation, the ESHG and ASHG cite considerations of distribution justice. Notably, however, an account of justice in the organization and provision of this type of screening which might substantiate this recommendation has yet to be developed. This paper attempts to redress this oversight through an investigation of Norman Daniels' theory of Just health: meeting health needs fairly. In line with this aim, the paper examines what special moral importance (for Just health) screening for the purpose of reproductive choice might have where concerning serious congenital and childhood disorders in particular. The paper concludes that screening for reproductive choice where concerning serious congenital and childhood disorders may be important for providing women with fair opportunity to protect their health (by either having or not having an affected child).


Subject(s)
Fetus/abnormalities , Prenatal Diagnosis/ethics , Delivery of Health Care/ethics , Female , Humans , Morals , Noninvasive Prenatal Testing/ethics , Pregnancy , Public Health/ethics , Social Justice
15.
Nat Methods ; 12(10): 917-9, 2015 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26418764

ABSTRACT

Recent studies show that pluripotent stem cells can undergo self-organized development in vitro into structures that mimic the body plan of the post-implantation embryo. Modeling human embryogenesis in a dish opens up new possibilities for the study of early development and developmental disorders, but it may also raise substantial ethical concerns.


Subject(s)
Embryo Research/ethics , Embryo, Mammalian/cytology , Pluripotent Stem Cells/physiology , Animals , Cell Differentiation , Cells, Cultured , Embryo Research/legislation & jurisprudence , Embryo, Mammalian/physiology , Gastrula/physiology , Gene Expression Regulation, Developmental , Humans , Mice
16.
Hum Reprod ; 33(9): 1581-1585, 2018 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30020439

ABSTRACT

It is widely acknowledged that the responsible introduction of new assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) requires preclinical safety research, including the use of animal models and human embryos. However, the moral sensitivity of human embryo research has led to regulations and guidance stating that human embryos may only be used for research that cannot also be conducted with animals. We call this the 'use animals first' (UAF) rule. In the field of ART research, this translates into the notion of an ideal chain of consecutive preclinical research steps, where research using human embryos may only be considered as a further step after promising results have been obtained in animals first. This may lead to research ethics committees requiring animal studies that are in fact a waste of time and money, while exposing animals to an infringement of their wellbeing for no good purpose. In this paper, we explore the possible moral arguments behind the UAF-rule and test their validity. We conclude that there are no convincing grounds for upholding this rule and recommend replacing it.


Subject(s)
Reproductive Techniques, Assisted/ethics , Research Embryo Creation/ethics , Animals , Ethics Committees, Research , Female , Humans , Models, Animal , Oocyte Donation/adverse effects , Oocyte Donation/ethics , Research Embryo Creation/legislation & jurisprudence
17.
Med Health Care Philos ; 21(3): 375-386, 2018 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29081015

ABSTRACT

How do professionals working in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) reflect upon their decision making with regard to ethical challenges arising in everyday practice? Two focus group discussions were held with staff of reproductive genetic clinics: one in Utrecht (The Netherlands) with PGD-professionals from Dutch PGD-centres and one in Prague (Czech Republic) with PGD-professionals working in centres in different European countries. Both meetings consisted of two parts, exploring participants' views regarding (1) treatment requests for conditions that may not fulfill traditional indications criteria for PGD, and (2) treatment and transfer requests involving welfare-of-the-child considerations. There was general support for the view that people who come for PGD will have their own good reasons to consider the condition they wish to avoid as serious. But whereas PGD-professionals in the international group tended to stress the applicants' legal right to eventually have the treatment they want (whatever the views of the professional), participants in the Dutch group sketched a picture of shared decision-making, where professionals would go ahead with treatment in cases where they are able to understand the reasonableness of the request in the light of the couple's reproductive history or family experience. In the international focus group there was little support for guidance stating that welfare-of-the child considerations should be taken into account. This was different in the Dutch focus group, where shared decision-making also had the role of reassuring professionals that applicants had adequately considered possible implications for the welfare of the child.


Subject(s)
Embryo Transfer/ethics , Genetic Testing/ethics , Health Personnel/ethics , Preimplantation Diagnosis/ethics , Bioethical Issues , Child , Child Welfare/ethics , Decision Making , Focus Groups , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Morals , Netherlands , Reproductive Rights/ethics , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted/ethics , Severity of Illness Index
18.
Med Health Care Philos ; 21(4): 537-545, 2018 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29417302

ABSTRACT

In the field of medically assisted reproduction (MAR), there is a growing emphasis on the importance of introducing new assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) only after thorough preclinical safety research, including the use of animal models. At the same time, there is international support for the three R's (replace, reduce, refine), and the European Union even aims at the full replacement of animals for research. The apparent tension between these two trends underlines the urgency of an explicit justification of the use of animals for the development and preclinical testing of new ARTs. Considering that the use of animals remains necessary for specific forms of ART research and taking account of different views on the moral importance of helping people to have a genetically related child, we argue that, in principle, the importance of safety research as part of responsible innovation outweighs the limited infringement of animal wellbeing involved in ART research.


Subject(s)
Animal Experimentation/ethics , Animal Welfare/ethics , Biomedical Research/ethics , Biomedical Research/methods , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted , Animals , Humans , Morals , Policy
19.
Nat Rev Genet ; 12(9): 657-63, 2011 08 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21850045

ABSTRACT

Prenatal screening strategies are undergoing rapid changes owing to the introduction of new testing techniques. The overall tendency is towards broadening the scope of prenatal testing through increasingly sensitive ultrasound scans and genome-wide molecular tests. In addition, non-invasive prenatal diagnosis is likely to be introduced in the near future. These developments raise important ethical questions concerning meaningful reproductive choice, the autonomy rights of future children, equity of access and the proportionality of testing.


Subject(s)
Chromosome Aberrations , Genetic Association Studies/methods , Neonatal Screening/ethics , Abortion, Eugenic , Aneuploidy , Child , Ethics, Medical , Female , Genetic Testing , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Karyotyping , Patient Rights/ethics , Pregnancy , Prenatal Diagnosis/ethics , Prenatal Diagnosis/methods , Sequence Analysis, DNA
20.
Prenat Diagn ; 37(3): 222-228, 2017 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28004394

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Parallel to recent advances in prenatal screening for Down syndrome (DS), therapies for different aspects of the condition have become available. As intellectual disability is a key aspect, this is an active area for research. Several groups have hypothesized that prenatal interventions will give better chances at improving cognitive functioning in persons with DS than postnatal treatment. Clinical trials are being developed. METHOD: We first discuss the ethical pros and cons of trying to improve cognitive functioning in persons with DS to see if there are categorical objections to the general idea, and then move on to explore ethically relevant aspects of the prospect of developing fetal therapy for DS (FTDS). RESULTS: Only on the basis of a one-dimensional emphasis on the social model of disability would (fetal) therapy aimed at cognitive improvement be inherently problematic. CONCLUSIONS: Inviting pregnant women to participate in FTDS-research should be based on adequate pre-clinical trials, as well as information aimed at avoiding the so-called 'therapeutic misconception'. Should FTDS be proven to be effective and safe, women carrying a fetus with trisomy 21 who have decided to continue the pregnancy may have a moral obligation to make use of this option. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


Subject(s)
Down Syndrome/therapy , Fetal Therapies/ethics , Animals , Cognition/physiology , Disease Models, Animal , Down Syndrome/diagnosis , Down Syndrome/psychology , Female , Fetal Therapies/methods , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Mice , Pregnancy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL