Michelle J Bayefsky1, Amina White2, Paul Wakim3, Sara Chandros Hull1,4, David Wasserman1, Stephanie Chen1, Benjamin E Berkman1,4. 1. Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 2. University of North Carolina, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology Service, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. Bioethics Core, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Given public demand for genetic information, the potential to perform prenatal whole-genome sequencing (PWGS) non-invasively in the future, and decreasing costs of whole-genome sequencing, it is likely that OB/GYN practice will include PWGS. The goal of this project was to explore OB/GYNs' views on the ethical issues surrounding PWGS and their preparedness for counseling patients on its use. METHODS: A national survey was administered to 2500 members of American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. RESULTS: A total of 1114 respondents completed the survey (response rate = 45%). OB/GYNs are most concerned with ordering non-medical fetal genetic information, are worried about increasing parental anxiety, and feel it is appropriate to be directive when counseling parents about PWGS. Furthermore, most OB/GYNs have limited knowledge of genetics, rely heavily on genetic counselors and would like more guidance regarding the clinical adoption of PWGS. CONCLUSION: OB/GYNs do not completely accept or reject PWGS, but a substantial number have significant ethical and practical concerns. They are most concerned with issues that will directly affect their practices and interactions with patients, such as increasing parental anxiety and costs of care. Professional guidance would be instrumental in directing the adoption of PWGS and alleviating the ethical burden posed by PWGS on individual OB/GYNs. Published 2016. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Published 2016. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
OBJECTIVE: Given public demand for genetic information, the potential to perform prenatal whole-genome sequencing (PWGS) non-invasively in the future, and decreasing costs of whole-genome sequencing, it is likely that OB/GYN practice will include PWGS. The goal of this project was to explore OB/GYNs' views on the ethical issues surrounding PWGS and their preparedness for counseling patients on its use. METHODS: A national survey was administered to 2500 members of American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. RESULTS: A total of 1114 respondents completed the survey (response rate = 45%). OB/GYNs are most concerned with ordering non-medical fetal genetic information, are worried about increasing parental anxiety, and feel it is appropriate to be directive when counseling parents about PWGS. Furthermore, most OB/GYNs have limited knowledge of genetics, rely heavily on genetic counselors and would like more guidance regarding the clinical adoption of PWGS. CONCLUSION:OB/GYNs do not completely accept or reject PWGS, but a substantial number have significant ethical and practical concerns. They are most concerned with issues that will directly affect their practices and interactions with patients, such as increasing parental anxiety and costs of care. Professional guidance would be instrumental in directing the adoption of PWGS and alleviating the ethical burden posed by PWGS on individual OB/GYNs. Published 2016. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Published 2016. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Authors: Melissa Hill; Sian Ellard; Jane Fisher; Naomi Fulop; Marian Knight; Mark Kroese; Jean Ledger; Kerry Leeson-Beevers; Alec McEwan; Dominic McMullan; Rhiannon Mellis; Stephen Morris; Michael Parker; Dagmar Tapon; Emma Baple; Laura Blackburn; Asya Choudry; Caroline Lafarge; Hannah McInnes-Dean; Michelle Peter; Rema Ramakrishnan; Lauren Roberts; Beverly Searle; Emma Smith; Holly Walton; Sarah L Wynn; Wing Han Wu; Lyn S Chitty Journal: NIHR Open Res Date: 2022-07-18
Authors: Sunayna Best; Karen Wou; Neeta Vora; Ignatia B Van der Veyver; Ronald Wapner; Lyn S Chitty Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Haley K Sullivan; Michelle Bayefsky; Paul G Wakim; Kathi Huddleston; Barbara B Biesecker; Sara Chandros Hull; Benjamin E Berkman Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 7.623
Authors: Frances L Lynch; Patricia Himes; Marian J Gilmore; Elissa M Morris; Jennifer L Schneider; Tia L Kauffman; Elizabeth Shuster; Jacob A Reiss; John F Dickerson; Michael C Leo; James V Davis; Carmit K McMullen; Benjamin S Wilfond; Katrina A B Goddard Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 2.537