Literature DB >> 18310190

Ethical, legal, and social concerns about expanded newborn screening: fragile X syndrome as a prototype for emerging issues.

Donald B Bailey1, Debra Skinner, Arlene M Davis, Ian Whitmarsh, Cynthia Powell.   

Abstract

Technology will make it possible to screen for fragile X syndrome and other conditions that do not meet current guidelines for routine newborn screening. This possibility evokes at least 8 broad ethical, legal, and social concerns: (1) early identification of fragile X syndrome, an "untreatable" condition, could lead to heightened anxiety about parenting, oversensitivity to development, alterations in parenting, or disrupted bonding; (2) because fragile X syndrome screening should be voluntary, informed consent could overwhelm parents with information, significantly burden hospitals, and reduce participation in the core screening program; (3) screening will identify some children who are or appear to be phenotypically normal; (4) screening might identify children with other conditions not originally targeted for screening; (5) screening could overwhelm an already limited capacity for genetic counseling and comprehensive care; (6) screening for fragile X syndrome, especially if carrier status is disclosed, increases the likelihood of negative self-concept, societal stigmatization, and insurance or employment discrimination; (7) screening will suggest risk in extended family members, raising ethical and legal issues (because they never consented to screening) and creating a communication burden for parents or expanding the scope of physician responsibility; and (8) screening for fragile X syndrome could heighten discrepancies in how men and women experience genetic risk or decide about testing. To address these concerns we recommend a national newborn screening research network; the development of models for informed decision-making; materials and approaches for helping families understand genetic information and communicating it to others; a national forum to address carrier testing and the disclosure of secondary or incidental findings; and public engagement of scientists, policy makers, ethicists, practitioners, and other citizens to discuss the desired aims of newborn screening and the characteristics of a system needed to achieve those aims.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18310190     DOI: 10.1542/peds.2007-0820

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatrics        ISSN: 0031-4005            Impact factor:   7.124


  36 in total

1.  Design and evaluation of a decision aid for inviting parents to participate in a fragile X newborn screening pilot study.

Authors:  Donald B Bailey; Megan A Lewis; Shelly L Harris; Tracey Grant; Carla Bann; Ellen Bishop; Myra Roche; Sonia Guarda; Leah Barnum; Cynthia Powell; Bradford L Therrell
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Parental views on informed consent for expanded newborn screening.

Authors:  Louise Moody; Kubra Choudhry
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 3.  Potential Uses and Inherent Challenges of Using Genome-Scale Sequencing to Augment Current Newborn Screening.

Authors:  Jonathan S Berg; Cynthia M Powell
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 6.915

4.  Supporting family adaptation to presymptomatic and "untreatable" conditions in an era of expanded newborn screening.

Authors:  Donald B Bailey; F Daniel Armstrong; Alex R Kemper; Debra Skinner; Steven F Warren
Journal:  J Pediatr Psychol       Date:  2008-03-30

5.  High-risk fragile x screening in Guatemala: use of a new blood spot polymerase chain reaction technique.

Authors:  Jennifer Yuhas; Paulina Walichiewicz; Ruiqin Pan; Wenting Zhang; E Melina Casillas; Randi J Hagerman; Flora Tassone
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2009-12

6.  Parents' decisions to screen newborns for FMR1 gene expansions in a pilot research project.

Authors:  Debra Skinner; Summer Choudhury; John Sideris; Sonia Guarda; Allen Buansi; Myra Roche; Cynthia Powell; Donald B Bailey
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2011-05-29       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 7.  Reconsidering reproductive benefit through newborn screening: a systematic review of guidelines on preconception, prenatal and newborn screening.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Fiona A Miller; Robin Z Hayeems; Denise Avard; Bartha M Knoppers
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-03-03       Impact factor: 4.246

8.  Newborn Sequencing in Genomic Medicine and Public Health.

Authors:  Jonathan S Berg; Pankaj B Agrawal; Donald B Bailey; Alan H Beggs; Steven E Brenner; Amy M Brower; Julie A Cakici; Ozge Ceyhan-Birsoy; Kee Chan; Flavia Chen; Robert J Currier; Dmitry Dukhovny; Robert C Green; Julie Harris-Wai; Ingrid A Holm; Brenda Iglesias; Galen Joseph; Stephen F Kingsmore; Barbara A Koenig; Pui-Yan Kwok; John Lantos; Steven J Leeder; Megan A Lewis; Amy L McGuire; Laura V Milko; Sean D Mooney; Richard B Parad; Stacey Pereira; Joshua Petrikin; Bradford C Powell; Cynthia M Powell; Jennifer M Puck; Heidi L Rehm; Neil Risch; Myra Roche; Joseph T Shieh; Narayanan Veeraraghavan; Michael S Watson; Laurel Willig; Timothy W Yu; Tiina Urv; Anastasia L Wise
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 7.124

9.  Parental intentions to enroll children in a voluntary expanded newborn screening program.

Authors:  Ryan S Paquin; Holly L Peay; Lisa M Gehtland; Megan A Lewis; Donald B Bailey
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 4.634

10.  Genetics specialists' perspectives on disclosure of genomic incidental findings in the clinical setting.

Authors:  Nancy R Downing; Janet K Williams; Sandra Daack-Hirsch; Martha Driessnack; Christian M Simon
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2012-10-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.