Prenatal screening pathways, as nowadays offered in most Western countries consist of similar tests. First, a risk‐assessment test for major aneuploides is offered to pregnant women. In case of an increased risk, invasive diagnostic tests, entailing a miscarriage risk, are offered. For decades, only conventional karyotyping was used for final diagnosis. Moreover, several foetal ultrasound scans are offered to detect major congenital anomalies, but the same scans also provide relevant information for optimal support of the pregnancy and the delivery.Recent developments (...) in prenatal screening include the application of microarrays that allow for identifying a much broader range of abnomalities than karyotyping, and non‐invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) that enables reducing the number of invasive tests for aneuploidies considerably. In the future, broad NIPT may become possible and affordable.This article will briefly address the ethical issues raised by these technological developments. First, a safe NIPT may lead to routinisation and as such challenge the central issue of informed consent and the aim of prenatal screening: to offer opportunity for autonomous reproductive choice. Widening the scope of prenatal screening also raises the question to what extent ‘reproductive autonomy’ is meant to expand. Finally, if the same test is used for two different aims, namely detection of foetal anomalies and pregnancy‐related problems, non‐directive counselling can no longer be taken as a standard. Our broad outline of the ethical issues is meant as an introduction into the more detailed ethical discussions about prenatal screening in the other articles of this special issue. (shrink)

A new landscape of prenatal testing is presently developing, including new techniques for risk-reducing, non-invasive sampling of foetal DNA and drastically enhanced possibilities of what may be rapidly and precisely analysed, surrounded by a growing commercial genetic testing industry and a general trend of individualization in healthcare policies. This article applies a set of established ethical notions from past debates on PNT for analysing PNT screening-programmes in this new situation. While some basic challenges of PNT stay untouched, the new development (...) supports a radical individualization of how PNT screening is organized. This reformation is, at the same time, difficult to reconcile with responsible spending of resources in a publicly funded healthcare context. Thus, while the ethical imperative of individualization holds and applies to PNT, the new landscape of PNT provides reasons to start rolling back the type of mass-screening programmes currently established in many countries. Instead, more limited offers are suggested, based on considerations of severity of conditions and optimized to simultaneously serve reproductive autonomy and public health within an acceptable frame of priorities. The new landscape of PNT furthermore underscores the ethical importance of supporting and including people with disabilities. For the very same reason, no ban on what may be analysed using PNT in the new landscape should be applied, although private offers must, of course, conform to strict requirements of respecting reproductive autonomy and what that means in terms of counselling. (shrink)

The issue of prenatal testing and selective abortion has never received open public appraisal. This is somewhat regrettable. The interest in this area, however, is rapidly growing. In part this is a result of concerns about the rate of development in genetic knowledge and questions as to its application. For instance, there will be a huge increase in the scope of conditions or features for which we will be able to screen, some of which could hardly be described as significant. (...) Further, for some time now, people with disabilities have had concerns about the practice of prenatal testing and selective abortion. This article looks at the relationship between reproductive autonomy, prenatal testing and associated practices, and the interests of people with disabilities. It asks whether such practices negatively affect the interests of such individuals, and if so, how. This is an important question for the formulation of public policy in this area. Although some groups have studied this issue in detail, policy bodies do not necessarily fully engage with their analyses. This may be a reflection of public confusion about this issue. To some degree, fear of causing offense may also inhibit both expression of public opinion and, in turn, policy analysis. This is unfortunate and needs to be acknowledged. a. (shrink)

Prenatal screening pathways, as nowadays offered in most Western countries consist of similar tests. First, a risk-assessment test for major aneuploides is offered to pregnant women. In case of an increased risk, invasive diagnostic tests, entailing a miscarriage risk, are offered. For decades, only conventional karyotyping was used for final diagnosis. Moreover, several foetal ultrasound scans are offered to detect major congenital anomalies, but the same scans also provide relevant information for optimal support of the pregnancy and the delivery. Recent (...) developments in prenatal screening include the application of microarrays that allow for identifying a much broader range of abnomalities than karyotyping, and non-invasive prenatal testing that enables reducing the number of invasive tests for aneuploidies considerably. In the future, broad NIPT may become possible and affordable. This article will briefly address the ethical issues raised by these technological developments. First, a safe NIPT may lead to routinisation and as such challenge the central issue of informed consent and the aim of prenatal screening: to offer opportunity for autonomous reproductive choice. Widening the scope of prenatal screening also raises the question to what extent ‘reproductive autonomy’ is meant to expand. Finally, if the same test is used for two different aims, namely detection of foetal anomalies and pregnancy-related problems, non-directive counselling can no longer be taken as a standard. Our broad outline of the ethical issues is meant as an introduction into the more detailed ethical discussions about prenatal screening in the other articles of this special issue. (shrink)

Empirical evidence suggests that some health professionals believe consent procedures for the emerging technology of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) should become less rigorous than those currently used for invasive prenatal testing. In this paper, we consider the importance of informed consent and informed choice procedures for protecting autonomy in those prenatal tests which will give rise to a definitive result. We consider whether there is anything special about NIPD that could sanction a change to consent procedures for prenatal diagnosis or (...) otherwise render informed decision-making less important. We accept the claim that the absence of risk of miscarriage to some extent lessens the gravity of the decision to test compared with invasive methods of testing. However, we also claim that the definitive nature of the information received, and the fact that the information can lead to decisions of great significance, makes NIPD an important choice. This choice should only be made by means of a rigorous and appropriately supported decision-making process (assuming that this is what the pregnant woman wants). We conclude that, on balance, consent procedures for NIPD should mirror those for invasive testing, albeit without the need to emphasise procedure-related risk. (shrink)

Sequenom Inc., a developer of medical diagnostic products, recently made their noninvasive test for Down syndrome available for clinical practice.1 The DNA-based test—given the name “MaterniT21”—requires only a simple maternal blood sample as early as 10 weeks of gestation. In recent clinical trials involving thousands of pregnant women, the MaterniT21 test identified 99.1% of cases of Down syndrome, and gave the correct result in 99.9% of cases when the fetus did not have Down syndrome. Sequenom’s test is thought to be (...) an improvement on previous prenatal testing techniques because of its. (shrink)

A hallmark of good antenatal care is to respect prospective parent’s choices and provide information in a way that encourages their autonomy and informed decision making. In this paper, we analyse the meaning of autonomous and informed decision making from the theoretical perspective and attempt to show how those concepts are described among prospective parents in early pregnancy and in the public media in a society where NT screening is almost a norm. We use interviews with Icelandic prospective parents in (...) early pregnancy (N = 40) and material covering the discourse around prenatal screening in the media over 5 years period. Our analysis indicates that both prospective parents and the public media include ethical terms in their rhetoric around prenatal screening although those concepts differ in their expression. We conclude that the context in which these decisions are taken does not encourage moral reflection. Prospective parents describe that there is a lack of dialogue with professionals when decisions are made about screening. With routine offer of screening the conceptualization of bioethical concepts finds its own way through a mainstream discourse which has limited connections to the theoretical notions. This has been neglected in the implementation of screening, as limited effort has been subject to audit with reference to explore how the offer of screening and informed choice is experienced among prospective parents. (shrink)