Reconsidering prenatal screening: An empirical-ethical approach to understand moral dilemmas as a question of personal preferences

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 35, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 410-414

  Garcia E ^a,b   Timmermans, D R M ^a   van Leeuwen, E ^b  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MORALITY; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK ASSESSMENT;

DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MORALS; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 72449135740     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.026880     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Health Council of the Netherlands: Committee on the Population Screening Act. 1996. Population screening act: the assessment of permit applications, 1996/ 09WBO. The Hague: Health Council of The Netherlands.
2. Health Council of the Netherlands. Prenatal screening: Down's syndrome, neural tube defects, routine-ultrasonography. The Hague, Health Council of the Netherlands 2001/11.
3. Kristol E. Picture perfect: the politics of prenatal testing. First Things 1993;32:17-24.
4. Brookes A. Women's voices: prenatal diagnosis and care for the disabled. Health Care Anal 2001;9:133-50.
5. O'Conner AM, Jacobsen MJ, Stacey D. An evidence based approach to managing women's decision conflict. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2002;31:570-81.
6. Getz L, Kirkengen AL. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: advancing technology, soft markers, for fetal chromosomal aberrations and unacknowledged ethical dilemmas. Soc Sci Med 2003;56:2045-57.
7. Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S. A measure of informed choice. Health Expec 2001;4:99-108.
8. Bennett MJ, Gau GS, Gau DW. Women's attitudes to screening for neural-tube defects. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1980;87:370-1.
9. Berne-Fromell K, Josefson G, Kjessler B. Who declines from antenatal serum alphafetoprotein screening-and why? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1984;63:687-91.
10. Markens S, Browner CH, Press N. Because of the risks: how US pregnant women account for refusing prenatal screening. Soc Sci Med 1999;49:359-69.
11. Michie S, Smith D, Marteu TM. Prenatal test: how are women deciding? Prenat Diagn 1999;19:7438.
12. Van der Berg M, Timmermans DR, Kleinveld JH, et al. Accepting or declining the offer of prenatal screening for congenital defects: test uptake and women's reasons. Prenat Diag 2005;25(1):84-90.
13. JØrgensen FS. Declining an alpha protein test in pregnancy, why and who? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1995;74:3-11.
14. Liamputtong P, Halliday JL, Warren R, et al. Why do women decline prenatal screening and diagnosis? Australian women's perspective. Women Health 2003;37:89-108.
15. Sher C, Romano-Zelekha O, Green MS, et al. Factors affecting performance of prenatal genetic testing by Israeli Jewish women. Am J Med Genet A 2003;120A:418-22.
16. Andrews LB. Prenatal screening and the culture of motherhood. Hastings Law J 1996;47:967-1006.
17. Marteau TM, Dormandy E. Facilitating informed choice in prenatal testing: How well are we doing? Am J Med Genet 2001;106:185-90.
18. Press N, Browner CH. Why women say yes to prenatal diagnosis. Soc Sci Med 1997;45:979-89.
19. Hildt E. Autonomy and freedom of choice in prenatal genetic diagnosis. Med Health Care Philo 2002;5:65-71.
20. Downing C. Negotiating responsibility: case studies of reproductive decision-making and prenatal genetic testing in families facing Huntingtondisease. J Genet Couns 2005;14:219-34.
21. Kleinveld JH, Timmermans DR, de Smit DJ, et al. Does prenatal screening influence anxiety levels of pregnant women? A longitudinal randomised controlled trial. Prenat Diag 2006;26:354-61.
22. Garcia E, Timmermans DR, van Leeuwen E. Impact of ethical beliefs on decisions about prenatal screening tests: searching for justification. Soc Sci Med 2008;66:753-64.
23. Garcia E, Timmermans DR, van Leeuwen E. Rethinking autonomy in the context of prenatal screening decision-making. Prenat Diagn 2008;28:115-20.
24. Fletcher J. Ethical issues in genetic screening and antenatal diagnosis. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1981;24:1151-68.
25. Hubbard R. Eugenics: new tools, old ideas. Women Health 1987;13:225-235.
26. Post SG. Huntington's disease: prenatal screening for late onset disease. J Med Ethics 1992;18:757-8.
27. Ahmed S, Green JM, Hewison J. Attitudes towards prenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancy for thalassemia in pregnant Pakistani women in the North of England. Prenat Diagn 2006;26:248-57.
28. Anderson LV. Moral dilemmas, deliberation, and choice. J Philos 1985;82:139-62.
29. Marcus RB. Moral dilemmas and consistency. J Philos 1980;77:121-36.
30. McConnell T. More on moral dilemmas. J Philos 1986;83:345-51.
31. Macintyre A. Moral dilemmas. Philos Phen Res 1990;50(suppl):367-82.
32. Ubel PA, Lowenstein G. The role of decision analysis in informed consent: choosing between intuition and systematicy. Soc Scien Med 1997;44:647-57.
33. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979;47:262-91.
34. Suter SM. The Routinization of prenatal testing. Am J Law Med 2002;28:233-70.