The identification and avoidance of disease susceptibility in embryos is the most common goal of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Most jurisdictions that accept but regulate the availability of PGD restrict it to what are characterized as ‘serious’ conditions. Line-drawing around seriousness is not determined solely by the identification of a genetic mutation. Other factors seen to be relevant include: impact on health or severity of symptoms; degree of penetrance (probability of genotype being expressed as a genetic disorder); potential for therapy; (...) rate of progression; heritability; and age of onset. In the original applications of PGD, most, if not all of these factors were seen as necessary but none was seen as sufficient for determining whether a genetic condition was labelled ‘serious’. This, however, is changing as impact on health or severity of symptoms is coming to eclipse the other considerations. This paper investigates how age of onset (primarily in the context of the United Kingdom (UK)) has become considerably less significant as a criterion for determining ethically acceptable applications of PGD. Having moved off the threshold of permitting PGD testing for only fatal (or seriously debilitating), early-onset diseases, I will investigate reasons for why age of onset will not do any work to discriminate between which adult-onset diseases should be considered serious or not. First I will explain the rationale underpinning age of onset as a factor to be weighed in making determinations of seriousness. Next I will challenge the view that later-onset conditions are less serious for being later than earlier-onset conditions. The final section of the paper will discuss some of the broader disability concerns at stake in limiting access to PGD based upon determinations of the ‘seriousness’ of genetic conditions. Instead of advocating a return to limiting PGD to only early-onset conditions, I conclude that the whole enterprise of trying to draw lines of what is to count as a ‘serious’ condition is itself problematic and in certain ways morally misleading. (shrink)

An increase in autonomy and freedom is often considered one ofthe main arguments in favour of a broad use of genetic testing.Starting from Gerald Dworkin's reflections on autonomy and choicethis article examines some of the implications which accompanythe increase in choices offered by prenatal genetic diagnosis.Although personal autonomy and individual choice are importantaspects in the legitimation of prenatal genetic diagnosis, itseems clear that an increase in choice offered by prenatalgenetic diagnosis also leads to various implications that maynegatively influence the freedom (...) of the persons involved. (shrink)

As a result of the increase in genetic testing and the fear of discrimination by insurance companies, employers, and society as a result of genetic testing, the disciplines of ethics, public health, and genetics have converged. Whether relatives of someone with a positive predictive genetic test should be notified of the results and risks is a matter urgently in need of debate. Such a debate must encompass the moral and ethical obligations of the diagnosing physician and the patient. The decision (...) to inform or not will vary depending on what moral theory is used. Utilising the utilitarian and libertarian theories produces different outcomes. The principles of justice and non-maleficence will also play an important role in the decision. (shrink)

Expanded non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has provoked ethical concerns about its justifiable scope. In this paper, we evaluate the role of the child’s right to an open future in setting the scope of NIPT. This ‘open future principle’ has been cited in arguments both limiting and expanding parental freedoms. This moral right holds that adult autonomy rights which children cannot yet exercise should nonetheless be protected until they can. Its purpose is to protect the future autonomy of the child as (...) a future adult. Several authors have extended this rationale from child to fetus. However, the right was not anticipated to apply to the fetus, a non-legal entity in many jurisdictions. The aim of this paper is to reconsider whether this principle is useful to help deliberate the scope of NIPT. We find that extending the open future principle to delineate the scope of NIPT is theoretically flawed. We contend that in the prenatal context its value primarily lies with counselling for prenatal screening where it can be used to encourage parents’ reflection on the implications of knowing for the sake of knowing on their future children and their relationship with them. (shrink)

South Africa’s Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1996 implicitly expresses the attitude that the prenatal detection of foetal abnormality justifies selective abortion, even at a stage when abortion is in general morally prohibited. It will be argued that this attitude is logically incompatible with a simultaneous commitment to non-discrimination against persons with disabilities, in that the Act makes allowance for the subjection of beings that are considered to be morally significant, but that exhibit disabling characteristics, to worse treatment (...) than their non-disabled counterparts, despite the fact that this differential treatment is not always justified by the presence of impairment. (shrink)

I argue that there is an important analogy between sex selection and selective abortion of fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome. There are surprising parallels between the social construction of Down syndrome as a disability and the deeply entrenched institutionalization of sexual difference in many societies. Prevailing concepts of gender and mental retardation exert a powerful influence in constructing the sexual identities and life plans of people with Down syndrome, and also affect their families' lives.1.

Genetic testing for cancer susceptibility is an application of biotechnology that has the potential both to improve the psychosocial and physical wellbeing of the population and to cause significant psychosocia1 and physical harms. In spite of the uncertain value of genetic testing, it has captured the interest of biotechnology companies, researchers, health care providers, and the public. As more tests become feasible, pressure may increase to make the tests available and reimbursable. Both the benefits and harms of these tests lie (...) not as much in the tests themselves, as in their power to predict or alter the future. The value of the tests does not derive from the information per se, but from the ability to communicate effectively the information to patients and providers, and the behavioral responses of patients, providers, and others to this information. (shrink)