Qualifying choice: ethical reflection on the scope of prenatal screening

Women's reproductive choice and (elective) egg freezing: is an extension of the storage limit missing a bigger issue?

Egg freezing can allow women to preserve their eggs to avoid age-related infertility. The UK's recent extension of elective egg freezing storage has been welcomed as a way of enhancing the reproductive choices of young women who wish to delay having children. In this paper, I explore the issue of enhancing women's reproductive choices, questioning whether there is a more significant aspect overlooked in egg freezing. While increasing storage limits expands reproductive choices for some women, focus on this extension alone, I argue, misses a fundamental issue with egg preservation that often remains ignored; the importance of effective information on egg freezing and the effect this has on women's reproductive choices. Ultimately, I highlight the crucial role of balanced information in enhancing women's choices regarding egg freezing and argue that focusing on extending and increasing provision may obscure this real opportunity to empower women and their authentic reproductive choices.

The risk of normative bias in reporting empirical research: lessons learned from prenatal screening studies about the prominence of acknowledged limitations

Empirical data can be an extremely powerful and influential tool in bioethical research. However, when researchers or policy makers look for answers to ethical questions by engaging with empirical research, there can be a tendency (conscious or unconscious) to shape, report, and use empirical research in a way that confirms their own preferred ethical conclusions. This skewing effect - what we call 'normative bias' - is often so subtle it falls short of clear misconduct and thus can be difficult to call out. However, we argue that this subtle influence of bias has the potential to significantly influence debate and policy around highly sensitive ethical issues and must be guarded against. In this paper we share the lessons we have learned through a journey of self-reflection around the effect that normative bias can have when reporting on and referring to empirical data relating to ethical issues. We use a variety of papers from our area of the ethics of routine prenatal screening to illustrate these subtle but often powerfully distorting effects of bias. Our aim in doing so is not to criticise the work of others, as we recognise our own normative bias, but to improve awareness of this issue, remind the need for reflexivity to guard against our own biases, and introduce a new criterion - the idea of a 'limitation prominence assessment' - that can work as a practical way to evaluate the seriousness of the limitations of an empirical study and thus, the risks of the study being misread or misinterpreted through superficial reading.

Parental Psychological Distress of Missed Diagnosis of Down Syndrome at Antenatal Screening: A Rare, but Still Real Occurrence - A Case Report and Review of Literature

INTRODUCTION

Prenatal screening programs are important components for pregnant women care and are often linked with grief and shock based on gestational age or the diagnosis. Lower/no sensitivity is also associated with these screening programs leading to providing false-negative outputs.

CASE PRESENTATION

Present work shows a case of missed antenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome and its persistant medical and psychological impact on the family members. We have also discussed the relevant economic and medical-legal issues related to the context and aimed to maintain an adequate awareness among healthcare to discuss properly these investigations (difference between screening and diagnostic testing), their possible outcome (chances of false results) and enabled the pregnant women/couple to take informed decision on early pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

These programs are considered as routine clinical practice in many countries from last few years and are necessary to assess the pros and cons of these programs. One of the prime cons involves the likeliness of obtaining a false-negative result due to lack of 100% sensitivity and specificity.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for "Non-Medical" Traits: Ensuring Consistency in Ethical Decision-Making

The scope of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) could expand in the future to include detailed analysis of the fetal genome. This will allow for the testing for virtually any trait with a genetic contribution, including "non-medical" traits. Here we discuss the potential use of NIPT for these traits. We outline a scenario which highlights possible inconsistencies with ethical decision-making. We then discuss the case against permitting these uses. The objections include practical problems; increasing inequities; increasing the burden of choice; negative impacts on the child, family, and society; and issues with implementation. We then outline the case for permitting the use of NIPT for these traits. These include arguments for reproductive liberty and autonomy; questioning the labeling of traits as "non-medical"; and the principle of procreative beneficence. This summary of the case for and against can serve as a basis for the development of a consistent and coherent ethical framework.

Fetal anomaly diagnosis and termination of pregnancy

The aim of this review was to discuss bioethics in prenatal diagnosis and health care after recent legislative and judicial changes affecting reproductive rights, such as the repeal of 'Roe v. Wade' in the United States. We recognize that abortion involves particular moralities that are not universal or shared by all cultures, groups, and individuals. We reviewed the historical aspects of embryology and personhood, fetal morbidity and mortality, and parental options for prenatal diagnostic testing. We examined relevant ethical issues including informed consent, the emergence of fetal pain, reproductive autonomy, the fiduciary responsibilities of pregnant mothers, and the obligations of physicians caring for the maternal-fetal dyad. The code of medical ethics includes respect for decisional privacy and the protection of information shared in confidence. When a fetal anomaly is diagnosed, pregnant mothers must be informed about the risks, burdens, and alternatives in either continuing or terminating the pregnancy. Parental choice should include the right to refuse testing, the informed choice not to know about certain genetic test results, and the right to make informed decisions about the best interests of the future child. In the diagnosis and care of fetal anomalies, moral dilemmas arise. Before fetal viability, the mother's autonomy, sense of beneficence, and personal values should be trusted and respected. Perinatal palliative care should be available to pregnant mothers whose anomalous fetus is carried to birth.

Decision-making process about prenatal genetic screening: how deeply do moms-to-be want to know from Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing?

BACKGROUND

Prenatal information may be obtained through invasive diagnostic procedures and non-invasive screening procedures. Several psychological factors are involved in the decision to undergo a non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) but little is known about the decision-making strategies involved in choosing a specific level of in-depth NIPT, considering the increased availability and complexity of NIPT options. The main aim of this work is to assess the impact of psychological factors (anxiety about pregnancy, perception of risk in pregnancy, intolerance to uncertainty), and COVID-19 pandemic on the type of NIPT chosen, in terms of the number of conditions that are tested.

METHODS

A self-administered survey evaluated the decision-making process about NIPT. The final sample comprised 191 women (M_age = 35.53; SD = 4.79) who underwent a NIPT from one private Italian genetic company. Based on the test date, the sample of women was divided between "NIPT before COVID-19" and "NIPT during COVID-19".

RESULTS

Almost all of the participants reported being aware of the existence of different types of NIPT and more than half reported having been informed by their gynecologist. Results showed no significant association between the period in which women underwent NIPT (before COVID-19 or during COVID-19) and the preferences for more expanded screening panel. Furthermore, regarding psychological variables, results showed a significant difference between perceived risk for the fetus based on the NIPT type groups, revealing that pregnant women who underwent the more expanded panel had a significantly higher level of perceived risk for the fetus than that reported by pregnant women who underwent the basic one. There was no statistically significant difference between the other psychological variables and NIPT type.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate the paramount role of gynecologist and other health care providers, such as geneticists and psychologists, is to support decision-making process in NIPT, in order to overcome people's deficits in genetic knowledge, promote awareness about their preferences, and control anxiety related to the unborn child. Decision-support strategies are critical during the onset of prenatal care, according to the advances in prenatal genomics and to parent's needs.

The Place of Philosophy in Bioethics Today

In some views, philosophy's glory days in bioethics are over. While philosophers were especially important in the early days of the field, so the argument goes, the majority of the work in bioethics today involves the "simple" application of existing philosophical principles or concepts, as well as empirical work in bioethics. Here, we address this view head on and ask: What is the role of philosophy in bioethics today? This paper has three specific aims: (1) to respond to skeptics and make the case that philosophy and philosophers still have a very important and meaningful role to play in contemporary bioethics, (2) to discuss some of the current challenges to the meaningful integration of philosophy and bioethics, and (3) to make suggestions for what needs to happen in order for the two fields to stay richly connected. We outline how bioethics center directors, funders, and philosopher bioethicists can help.

The Duty to Protect, Abortion, and Organ Donation

Some people oppose abortion on the grounds that fetuses have full moral status and thus a right to not be killed. We argue that special obligations that hold between mother and fetus also hold between parents and their children. We argue that if these special obligations necessitate the sacrifice of bodily autonomy in the case of abortion, then they also necessitate the sacrifice of bodily autonomy in the case of organ donation. If we accept the argument that it is obligatory to override a woman's bodily autonomy for the sake of an unborn child's survival, we must continue to override the bodily autonomy of parents to ensure the survival of their living children, until the parent no longer has a special obligation to their child to the same degree as their special obligation to the fetus. And if the life of a child is truly more important than the bodily autonomy of its parents, as must be the case to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, this should remain true until such a time that their children are no longer considered their responsibility. Thus, parity of reasoning suggests that policies compelling the gestation of a fetus should be accompanied by policies compelling organ donation.

Views on disability and prenatal testing among families with Down syndrome and disability activists: A comparative analysis of interviews from Germany and Israel

The prenatal genetic testing arena has witnessed great changes over the past decades and has been the focus of extensive discussion of its ethical, legal, and social implications. Germany and Israel were previously known for strongly contrasting regulations and attitudes of both professionals and laypeople towards genetic testing. Based on qualitative analysis of 37 semi-structured interviews, this study compares German and Israeli family members of individuals with Down syndrome and disability activists, thereby examining the interplay between lived experience and cultural scripts and their impact on the formation of personal views toward disability and prenatal testing. We have found that the differences between Germany and Israel remain, despite the emergence of new technologies, and that family members and disability activists reflect the norms of their socio-cultural environments, thereby emphasising the role society plays in shaping the views of those with direct experience of disability.

Is routine prenatal screening and testing fundamentally incompatible with a commitment to reproductive choice? Learning from the historical context

An enduring ethical dispute accompanies prenatal screening and testing (PST) technologies. This ethical debate focuses on notions of reproductive choice. On one side of the dispute are those who have supported PST as a way to empower women's reproductive choice, while on the other side are those who argue that PST, particularly when made a routine part of prenatal care, limits deliberate choice. Empirical research does not resolve this ethical debate with evidence both of women for whom PST enhances their choices but also persistent evidence of recurrent problems between PST and women's autonomous decision-making. While there have been attempts to remove challenges to reproductive choice, it has been argued that these challenges cannot be removed entirely. In this paper I provide a historical review of PST technologies' development and in doing so provide a detailed insight into the root causes of this tension between the opposing sides of this debate. This historical account provides evidence that those who championed the early use of these technologies did so in order to achieve a number of wholly different goals other than women's choice and empowerment. These different aims focus on scientific discovery and eugenic goals and, I argue, are irreconcilable with women's choice and empowerment. It thus may not be surprising that the resulting practice of PST continues to resist compatibility with women's choice and empowerment. Ultimately, by understanding the historical foundations of PST we can more effectively assess how to reconcile women's reproductive autonomy with routine prenatal screening.

Prenatal Diagnosis for Primary Immunodeficiency Disorders-An Overview of the Indian Scenario

Prenatal Diagnosis (PND) forms an important part of primary preventive management for families having a child affected with primary immunodeficiency. Although individually sparse, collectively this group of genetic disorders represents a significant burden of disease. This paper discusses the prenatal services available for affected families at various centers across the country and the challenges and ethical considerations associated with genetic counseling. Mutation detection in the index case and analysis of chorionic villous sampling or amniocentesis remain the preferred procedures for PND and phenotypic analysis of cordocentesis sample is reserved for families with well-characterized index case seeking PND in the latter part of the second trimester of pregnancy. A total of 112 families were provided PND services in the last decade and the presence of an affected fetus was confirmed in 32 families. Post-test genetic counseling enabled the affected families to make an informed decision about the current pregnancy.

A Capabilities Approach to Prenatal Screening for Fetal Abnormalities

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.

L’enfant à naître : dispositifs de contrôle dès que la vie paraît

Cadre de la recherche : L’article met en lumière l’influence des technologies et de la médicalisation, dès la vie utérine, sur les femmes ayant une grossesse dite normale.

Objectifs : L’objectif est de démontrer comment le politique, les institutions et la société mettent en place des dispositifs permettant d’assurer un contrôle sur le fœtus à travers le corps de la mère et comment ceux-ci modifient le rapport à la grossesse et le développement de la relation anténatale.

Méthodologie : Une recherche qualitative avec une approche phénoménologique contextualisée a permis de recueillir les propos de vingt-cinq primipares québécoises sur leur expérience lors de la grossesse et après la naissance de l’enfant. L’analyse a été conduite dans une perspective socio-anthropologique.

Résultats : Les témoignages convergent inévitablement vers les dispositifs de contrôle mis en place autour de la procréation et de l’enfant à naître. La femme enceinte est ainsi invitée à se conformer à de nouvelles normes sociales et médicales par le biais de programmes gouvernementaux et d’un suivi de grossesse standardisé. Le pouvoir s’exerce de manière diffuse en faisant appel à sa responsabilisation face à la prise de bonnes décisions pour produire un enfant en santé. L’anticipation du risque et la technologie occupent une place prégnante sur le vécu des parents et il est difficile pour eux de s’y soustraire.

Conclusions : Les dispositifs de surveillance et de contrôle sur la vie anténatale ne cessent de croître et le développement de la technologie, avec la gamme de nouveaux dépistages génétiques, laisse entrevoir des conséquences importantes sur la signification de la  « normalité » et l’acceptabilité des naissances hors standards.

Contribution : Cet article contribue à montrer les effets des nouvelles technologies sur l’anticipation de l’enfant et les débuts de la grossesse ainsi qu’à constater la progression de la temporalité anténatale induite par la précocité des tests de grossesse.

Should pregnant women be charged for non-invasive prenatal screening? Implications for reproductive autonomy and equal access

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.

Just choice: a Danielsian analysis of the aims and scope of prenatal screening for fetal abnormalities

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).

Women's perspectives on the ethical implications of non-invasive prenatal testing: a qualitative analysis to inform health policy decisions

BACKGROUND

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) is a technology which provides information about fetal genetic characteristics (including sex) very early in pregnancy by examining fetal DNA obtained from a sample of maternal blood. NIPT is a morally complex technology that has advanced quickly to market with a strong push from industry developers, leaving many areas of uncertainty still to be resolved, and creating a strong need for health policy that reflects women's social and ethical values. We approach the need for ethical policy-making by studying the use of NIPT and emerging policy in the province of Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

Using an adapted version of constructivist grounded theory, we conducted interviews with 38 women who have had personal experiences with NIPT. We used an iterative process of data collection and analysis and a staged coding strategy to conduct a descriptive analysis of ethics issues identified implicitly and explicitly by women who have been affected by this technology.

RESULTS

The findings of this paper focus on current ethical issues for women seeking NIPT, including place in the prenatal pathway, health care provider counselling about the test, industry influence on the diffusion of NIPT, consequences of availability of test results. Other issues gain relevance in the context of future policy decisions regarding NIPT, including funding of NIPT and principles that may govern the expansion of the scope of NIPT. These findings are not an exhaustive list of all the potential ethical issues related to NIPT, but rather a representation of the issues which concern women who have personal experience with this test.

CONCLUSIONS

Women who have had personal experience with NIPT have concerns and priorities which sometimes contrast dramatically with the theoretical ethics literature. These findings suggest the importance of engaging patients in ethical deliberation about morally complex technologies, and point to the need for more deliberative patient engagement work in this area.