ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: We delineate in this article a shift from the "traditional" technologies of karyotyping in PND to the current phase of advanced genetic technologies including noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), and whole-exome sequencing (WES) with their higher detection rate and related abundance of uncertain data. METHODS: Conceptual analysis based on seminal works that shaped the socioethical discourse surrounding the experiences of parents as well as professionals with prenatal diagnosis in the last 30 years. RESULTS: We consider the implications of this new era of PND for patients and health professionals by drawing on previous studies documenting how probability and uncertainty affect informed consent/choice, health risks communication, customer satisfaction and decision making, and parent-child bonding. CONCLUSIONS: We argue that these changes move us beyond the idioms and realities of the tentative pregnancy and moral pioneering, to uncertainty, probability-based counseling, and moral/translational gambling. We conclude by discussing what is needed to maintain hope in the era of Pandora's pregnancy.
Subject(s)
Genetic Testing , Metaphor , Prenatal Diagnosis , Adult , Decision Making , Female , Genetic Counseling , Genetic Testing/ethics , Genetic Testing/methods , Genetic Testing/trends , History, 20th Century , History, 21st Century , Humans , Informed Consent , Karyotyping/ethics , Karyotyping/methods , Karyotyping/trends , Microarray Analysis/ethics , Microarray Analysis/methods , Microarray Analysis/trends , Noninvasive Prenatal Testing/ethics , Noninvasive Prenatal Testing/methods , Noninvasive Prenatal Testing/trends , Parents/psychology , Pregnancy , Prenatal Diagnosis/ethics , Prenatal Diagnosis/methods , Prenatal Diagnosis/trends , Uncertainty , Exome Sequencing/ethics , Exome Sequencing/methods , Exome Sequencing/trendsABSTRACT
No consensus exists whether women at increased risk for trisomy 21, 13, and 18 should be offered stand-alone rapid aneuploidy detection (RAD) or karyotyping. In this paper, the ethical implications of a fast, relatively cheap and targeted RAD are examined. The advantages of RAD seem less robust than its proponents suggest. Fast test results only give a short-term psychological benefit. The cost advantage of RAD is apparent, but must be weighed against consequences like missed abnormalities, which are evaluated differently by professionals and pregnant women. Since pre-test information about RAD will have to include telling women about karyotyping as a possible alternative, the advantage of RAD in terms of the quantity of information that needs to be given may also be smaller than suggested. We conclude that none of the supposed arguments in favour of RAD is decisive in itself. Whether the case for RAD may still be regarded as convincing when taking these arguments together seems to depend on one's implicit view of what prenatal screening is about. Are we basically dealing with a test for trisomy 21 and a few conditions more? Or are there good grounds for also testing for the wider range of abnormalities that karyotyping can detect? As professionals and pregnant women may have different views about this, we suggest that the best approach is to offer women a choice between RAD and karyotyping. This approach is most in line with the general aim of prenatal screening: providing opportunities for autonomous reproductive choice.
