Should the scope of NIPT be limited by a 'threshold of seriousness'?

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has the potential to screen for a wider range of genetic conditions than is currently possible at an early stage of pregnancy and with minimal risks. As such, there have been calls to apply a 'threshold of seriousness' to limit the scope of conditions being tested. This approach is based on concerns about society at large and the potential impact on specific groups within it. In this paper, we argue that limiting the scope of NIPT using the criterion of 'seriousness' is arbitrary, potentially stigmatises certain disabilities over others and fails to respect reproductive autonomy. We contend that concerns about expanded NIPT are more appropriately addressed by the provision of adequate information, counselling and consent procedures. We recommend a decision-making process that helps healthcare providers support prospective parents to make informed decisions about the nature and scope of NIPT screening based on their own values and social context. In addition to addressing concerns about expanded NIPT screening, this process would help clinicians to obtain legally valid consent and discharge their duty of care (including the duty to inform) in the prenatal context.

Contributing to an autism biobank: Diverse perspectives from autistic participants, family members and researchers

LAY ABSTRACT

A lot of autism research has focused on finding genes that might cause autism. To conduct these genetic studies, researchers have created 'biobanks' - collections of biological samples (such as blood, saliva, urine, stool and hair) and other health information (such as cognitive assessments and medical histories). Our study focused on the Australian Autism Biobank, which collected biological and health information from almost 1000 Australian autistic children and their families. We wanted to know what people thought about giving their information to the Biobank and why they chose to do so. We spoke to 71 people who gave to the Biobank, including 18 autistic adolescents and young adults, 46 of their parents and seven of their siblings. We also spoke to six researchers who worked on the Biobank project. We found that people were interested in giving their information to the Biobank so they could understand why some people were autistic. Some people felt knowing why could help them make choices about having children in the future. People also wanted to be involved in the Biobank because they believed it could be a resource that could help others in the future. They also trusted that scientists would keep their information safe and were keen to know how that information might be used in the future. Our findings show that people have lots of different views about autism biobanks. We suggest researchers should listen to these different views as they develop their work.

Expressivist objections to prenatal screening and testing: Perceptions of people living with disability

The 'expressivist objection' (EO) refers to the notion that using reproductive (genetic) technologies to prevent the birth of future would-be disabled people contain, and express, a negative valuation of life with disability. Whilst the EO has received increased attention in recent years in line with rapid technological and genomic developments, there remains scant research on how EO concerns are experienced and expressed by disabled people and their families, especially within and between impairment groups. Bringing together two studies-one with adults and family members living with genetic conditions (n = 62) and one with parents of children with Down's syndrome (n = 22)-we argue that disabled people and their families variously embrace, reject or rework the EO across contexts, and yet also frequently situate it within broad support for reproductive technologies. We present three key factors that mediate responses to the EO: (1) the nature of impairment and its integration within identity; (2) social and cultural contexts relating to disability and (3) the (individual and collective) imagined futures of disabled people. In so doing, we blend the conceptual architecture of medical sociology and disability studies, arguing that this allows us to accurately illuminate the nuanced responses of disabled people and their families.

Preserving women's reproductive autonomy while promoting the rights of people with disabilities?: the case of Heidi Crowter and Maire Lea-Wilson in the light of NIPT debates in England, France and Germany

On July 2021, the UK High Court of Justice heard the Case CO/2066/2020 on the application of Heidi Crowter who lives with Down's syndrome, and Máire Lea-Wilson whose son Aidan has Down's syndrome. Crowter and Lea-Wilson, with the support of the disability rights campaign, 'Don't Screen Us Out', have been taking legal action against the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (the UK Government) for a review of the 1967 Abortion Act: the removal of section 1(1)(d) making termination of pregnancy lawful for 'severe' fetal indications detected after 24 weeks' gestation. On 23 September 2021, the High Court dismissed the claim. This action came at a time when non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) was introduced into the NHS England Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme for the trisomies 21, 13 and 18. The implementation of NIPT has been heavily criticised, in particular by 'Don't Screen Us Out' campaigners, for increasing fetal selection and discrimination of people living with disabilities. The case of Crowter and Lea-Wilson echoes debates in other European countries such as in France and Germany, where the introduction of NIPT in the public healthcare system has provoked equally vehement public reactions and discussions. The comparison between these three countries allows contextualising the public discourses around NIPT and the ground for termination of pregnancy in relation to different socio-cultural and political contexts. We examine how each country, and particularly England, deals with the conflict between the principles of promoting the rights of people living with disabilities and preserving women's reproductive autonomy.

Health professionals and scientists' views on genome-wide NIPT in the French public health system: Critical analysis of the ethical issues raised by prenatal genomics

In France, since January 2020, laboratories have started to make available genome-wide Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (GW-NIPT) beyond the three common trisomies (T21, T13 and T18) at the same cost as standard NIPT. With the possible margins for interpretation of the legal framework and in the absence of clear and updated guidelines, health professionals are left with questions about which type of screening offer may be clinically responsible, morally appropriate, and, at the same time, respectful of women’s values and ability to make autonomous choices. The aim of this study is to provide an analysis and understanding of the challenging dimensions of clinical practices in the context of evolving scientific knowledge and techniques in prenatal genomics. In this article, we develop a critical analysis of the arguments and concerns that emerge around the offer of expanded NIPT and are discussed by health professionals and scientists. To achieve this, we conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 17 health professionals and scientists from September 2021 to February 2022 and a comprehensive literature review (regulatory, scientific, medical, institutional sources). The results of our empirical research highlight the importance of addressing ethical issues related to the differing quality of counselling, the complexity of achieving informed consent, and the avoidance of harm to pregnant women in the feedback of findings beyond T21, T18 and T13. If there is an increase in the provision of GW-NIPT within the French public health system, it will be essential to promote medical practices that respect reproductive choices of women, support their autonomous decision and their understanding of the limitations and uncertainties associated with GW screening. Further research is required to provide an insight into women’s perceptions in order to refine our analysis from the patients’ perspective.