Preimplantation genetic diagnosis as an alternative to amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: Psychosocial and ethical aspects

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 5-13

  Vergeer, M M ^a   Van Balen, F ^b   Ketting, E ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c Netherlands School of Public Health   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Amniocentesis; Chorionic villus sampling; Disorders; Handicaps; IVF; Prenatal genetic diagnosis

Indexed keywords

AMNIOCENTESIS; ARTICLE; CHORION VILLUS; DISABILITY; ETHICS; GENETIC DISORDER; PREIMPLANTATION EMBRYO; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION;

ADULT; AMNIOCENTESIS; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CHORIONIC VILLI SAMPLING; DELPHI TECHNIQUE; ETHICS, MEDICAL; FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMANS; NETHERLANDS; PREGNANCY; PREIMPLANTATION DIAGNOSIS; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 0032443723     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0738-3991(98)00079-2     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Brewaeys A., Ponjaert L., Van Steirteghem A.C., Devroey P. Children from anonymous donors: an inquiry into homosexual and heterosexual parents' attitudes. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 14:1993;23-35.
2. Shenfield F., Steele S.J. What are the effects of anonymity and secrecy on the welfare of the child in gamete donation. Hum Reprod. 12:1997;392-395.
3. Leiblum S.R., Aviv A.L. Disclosure issues and decisions of couples who conceived via donor insemination. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 18:1997;292-301.
4. Baetens P, Verte D, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen I, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Counselling recipients for oocyte donation. In: Advances in family research. Hox JJ, Van der Meulen BF, Janssens JMAM, Ter Laak JJF, Tavecchio LWC, editors. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers 1995; 285-292.
5. Alhuja K.K., Mostyn B.J., Simons E.G. Egg sharing and egg donation: attitudes of British egg donors and recipients. Hum Reprod. 12:1997;2845-2853.
6. Sauer M.V. Should egg donors be paid? Exploitation or a woman's right. Br Med J. 314:1997;1403.
7. Thomassen-Brepols LJ. Psychosociale aspecten van prenatale diagnostiek (Psychosocial aspects of prenatal diagnosis). The Hague: Pasmans, 1985.
8. Frets P.G., Duivenvoorden H.J., Niemeijer M.F., Van den Berge S.M.M., Galjaard H. Factors influencing the reproductive decision after genetic counseling. Am J Med Gen. 35:1990;496-502.
9. Elkins T.E., Stovall T.G., Wilroy S., Dacus J.V. Attitudes of mothers of children with Down syndrome concerning amniocentesis, abortion, and prenatal genetic counseling techniques. Obstet Gynecol. 68:1986;181-184.
10. Cohan C.L., Dunkel-Schetter C. Pregnancy decision making, predictors of early stress and adjustment. Psychol Women Q. 17:1993;223-240.
11. Törnbom M., Ingelhammer E., Lilja H., Möller A., Svanberg B. Repeat abortion: a comparative study. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 17:1996;208-214.
12. Iles S., Gath D. Psychiatric outcome of termination of pregnancy for foetal abnormality. Psychol Med. 23:1993;407-413.
13. Hunfeld J.A.M., Wladimiroff J.W., Passchier J. The grief of late pregnancy loss. Patient Educ Couns. 31:1997;57-64.
14. Handyside A.H., Penketh R.J.A., Winston R.M.L., Pattinson J.K., Delhanty J.D.A., Tuddemham E.G.D. Biopsy preimplantation embryos and sexing DNA amplification. Lancet. i:1989;347-349.
15. Handyside A.H., Kontogianni E.H., Hardy K., Winston R.M.L. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature. 344:1990;768-770.
16. Griffin D., Wilton L., Handyside A.H., Winston R.M.L., Delhanty J.D.A. Dual fluorescent in situ hybridisation for simultaneous detection of X and Y chromosome specific probes for sexing of human preimplantation embryonic nuclei. Hum Gen. 89:1992;18-22.
17. Handyside AH. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis today. In: Human conception in vitro 1995. Jones HW, Cohen J, Hamberger L, editors. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996:139-151.
18. Munné S., Daily T., Sultan K.M.et al. The use of first polar bodies for preimplantation diagnosis of aneuplody. Hum Reprod. 10:1995;1014-1020.
19. Verlinsky Y., Cieslak J., Freidine M.et al. Pregnancies following preconception diagnosis of common aneuploidies by fluoresecnt in-situ hibridization. Hum Reprod. 10:1995;1923-1927.
20. Harper J.C., Handyside A.H. The current status of preimplantation diagnosis. Curr Obstet Gynecol. 4:1994;143-149.
21. International working group on pre-implantation genetics. Report at the 9th International Congress of Human Genetics, Rio de Janeiro 1996.
22. Second international symposium on preimplantation genetics, Sept. 18-21 1997, Chicago, Ill.
23. Visser A., Ph Haan G., Zalmstra H., Wouters I. Psychosocial aspects of in vitro fertilization. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 15:1994;35-44.
24. Laffont I., Edelmann R.J. Psychological aspects of in vitro fertilization: a gender comparison. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 15:1994;85-92.
25. Weaver S.M., Clifford E., Hay D.M., Robinson J. Psychosocial adjustment to unsuccessful IVF and GIFT treatment. Patient Educ Couns. 31:1997;7-18.
26. Pergament E. Preimplantation diagnosis: A patient perspective. Prenatal Diagnosis. 11:1991;493-500.
27. Miedzybrodzka Z., Templeton A., Dean J., Haites N., Mollison J., Smith N. Preimplantation diagnosis or chorionic villus biopsy? Women's attitudes and preferences. Hum Reprod. 8:1993;2192-2196.
28. Palomba M.L., Monni G., Lai R., Cau G., Olla G., Cao A. Psychological implications and acceptability of preimplantation diagnosis. Hum Reprod. 9:1994;360-362.
29. Snowdon C., Green J.M. Preimplantation diagnosis and other reproductive options: attitudes of male and female carriers of recessive disorders. Hum Reprod. 12:1997;341-350.
30. Katz-Rothman B. The tentative pregnancy: prenatal diagnosis and the future of motherhood. London: Pandora 1988.
31. Geelen E. Prenatale diagnostiek, beslissen en beleven (Prenatal diagnosis, decisions and experience). Maastricht: Stichting Klinische Genetica; 1994.
32. Van Berkel D. Zwangerschap als risico (Pregnancy as a risk. In: Het kind van de toekomst, consequenties van voortplantingstechnologie (The child of the future, consequences of the reproductive technology). Van Balen F, Van Berkel D, Verdurmen J, editors. Groningen: Van Brug, 1997.
33. Coonen E., Dumoulin J.C.M., Ramaekers F.C.S., Hopman A.H.N. Optimal preparation of preimplantation embryo interphase nuclei for analysis by fluorescence in-situ hybridization. Hum Reprod. 9:1994;553-557.
34. Harper J.C., Coonen E., Ramaeker F.C.S.et al. Indentification of the sex of human preimplantation embryos in two hours using an improved spreading methode and fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) using directly labelled probes. Hum Reprod. 9:1994;721-724.
35. Sörgen B., Uddenberg N. Attitudes towards disabled perons and the possible effects of prenatal diagnosis. An interview study among 53 women participating in prenatal diagnosis and 20 of their husbands. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 6:1987;187-196.
36. Marteau T.M., Drake H. Attributions for disability: The influence of genetic screening. Soc Sci Med. 40:1995;1127-1132.
37. Julian-Reynier C., Aurran Y., Dumaret A.et al. Attitudes towards Down's syndrome: follow up of a cohort of 280 cases. J Med Genet. 32:1995;597-599.