Literature DB >> 12663637

Down's syndrome screening is unethical: views of today's research ethics committees.

T M Reynolds1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Screening for Down's syndrome forms part of routine obstetric practice. Ethical considerations relating to genetic screening form a major part of the workload of research ethics committees. This study investigated the attitudes of research ethics committee members to several conditions varying in clinical severity and prognosis, including Down's syndrome.
METHODS: The members of 40 randomly chosen research ethics committees were surveyed. A simple questionnaire comprising 19 clinical scenarios based around four "clinical" conditions was designed to review conditions that were potentially embarrassing, affecting life span but not mental ability, premature death, and intellectual impairment with a risk of neonatal cardiac defects (Down's syndrome). Screening tests with different degrees of effectiveness were described and the diagnostic test descriptions ranged from having no risk to an unaffected fetus to causing spontaneous abortion of two normal fetuses for each affected fetus identified. Replies were graded on a scale of 1 to 5.
RESULTS: Seventy seven replies were received from 28 different research ethics committees. Screening was supported for treatment of a life threatening condition (95% in favour) but screening for conditions of a slight increase in premature death (14% in favour) or cosmetic features (10% in favour) were considered unethical. Views were ambiguous (49% in favour) about conditions involving significant shortening of lifespan. Down's syndrome screening was considered more ethical when described as a serious condition (56% in favour) than when the clinical features were described (44% in favour). Once increased rates of spontaneous abortion on confirmatory testing were added, 79% (21% in favour) and 86% (14% in favour) stated that screening was unethical (for "serious" and "clinical features" descriptions, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Down's syndrome screening raises ethical concerns about genetic testing in general that need to be dealt with before the introduction of any prenatal screening test.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Genetics and Reproduction

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12663637      PMCID: PMC1769927          DOI: 10.1136/jcp.56.4.268

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0021-9746            Impact factor:   3.411


  13 in total

1.  Reactions to prenatal testing: reflection of religiosity and attitudes toward abortion and people with disabilities.

Authors:  M Bell; Z Stoneman
Journal:  Am J Ment Retard       Date:  2000-01

2.  Human genetic improvement: a comparison of Russian and British public perceptions.

Authors:  L Gudkov; P Tichtchenko; B Yudin
Journal:  Bull Med Ethics       Date:  1998-01

3.  The perceptions of Lutheran pastors toward prenatal genetic counseling and pastoral care.

Authors:  J Stuck; J Faine; A Boldt
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Attitudes towards abortion in the Danish population.

Authors:  Michael Norup
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 1.898

5.  Decisions about prenatal testing for chromosomal disorders: perceptions of a diverse group of pregnant women.

Authors:  A Moyer; B Brown; E Gates; M Daniels; H D Brown; M Kuppermann
Journal:  J Womens Health Gend Based Med       Date:  1999-05

6.  An economic appraisal of screening for Down's syndrome in pregnancy using maternal age and serum alpha fetoprotein concentration.

Authors:  M Gill; V Murday; J Slack
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  Down's syndrome: cost, quality and value of life.

Authors:  P Alderson
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 4.634

8.  Women's decision-making in prenatal screening.

Authors:  P Santalahti; E Hemminki; A M Latikka; M Ryynänen
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 4.634

9.  Maternal serum screening for Down's syndrome in early pregnancy.

Authors:  N J Wald; H S Cuckle; J W Densem; K Nanchahal; P Royston; T Chard; J E Haddow; G J Knight; G E Palomaki; J A Canick
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1988-10-08

10.  Procedure-related miscarriages and Down syndrome-affected births: implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferences.

Authors:  M Kuppermann; R F Nease; L A Learman; E Gates; B Blumberg; A E Washington
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 7.661

View more
  3 in total

1.  The ethics of antenatal screening: lessons from Canute.

Authors:  Timothy M Reynolds
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2009-11

2.  Pregnancy Centers: A Clear Purpose of Medicine with Coherent Ethics.

Authors:  Christopher Lisanti; Sandy Christiansen
Journal:  Linacre Q       Date:  2020-05-12

3.  The triple test as a screening technique for Down syndrome: reliability and relevance.

Authors:  Tim Reynolds
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2010-08-09
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.