Printing Unrealistic Expectations: A Closer Look at Newspaper Representations of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing

AJOB Empirical Bioethics

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 68-80

  Truitt, Anjali R ^a   Nguyen, Michael H V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Down syndrome; informed consent; mass media; personal autonomy; prenatal care; prenatal diagnosis

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924408657     PISSN: 23294515     EISSN: 23294523     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2014.993099     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Agarwal, A., L. C. Sayres, M. K. Cho, R. Cook-Deegan, and S. Chandrasekharan. 2013. Commercial landscape of noninvasive prenatal testing in the United States. Prenatal Diagnosis 33(6): 521–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pd.4101
2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). 2012. Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. Committee opinion no. 545.Obstetrics & Gynecology 120(6): 1532–4.
3. Asch, A. 1999. Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion: A challenge to practice and policy. American Journal of Public Health 89(11): 1649–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.11.1649
4. Asch, A. 2000. Why I haven't changed my mind about prenatal diagnosis: Reflections and refinements. In Prenatal testing and disability rights, ed. E. Parens and A. Asch, 51. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
5. Asch, A., and D. Wasserman. 2005. Where is the sin in synecdoche? Prenatal testing and the parent-child relationship. In Quality of life and human difference: Genetic testing, health care, and disability, ed. D. Wasserman, J. Bickenback, and R. Wachbroit, 234–60. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
6. Bubela, T. M., and T. A. Caulfield. 2004. Do the print media “hype” genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers. Canadian Medical Association Journal 170(9): 1399–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1030762
7. Caulfield, T. 2004. Biotechnology and the popular press: Hype and the selling of science. Trends in Biotechnology 22(7): 337–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2004.03.014
8. Davis, D. S. 2010. Genetic dilemmas: Reproductive technology, parental choices, and children's futures. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9. de Jong, A., W. J. Dondorp, S. G. Frints, C. E. de Die-Smulders, and G. M. de Wert. 2011. Advances in prenatal screening: the ethical dimension. Nature Reviews Genetics 12(9): 657–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrg3036
10. Devaney, S. A., G. E. Palomaki, J. A. Scott, and D. Bianchi. 2011. Noninvasive fetal sex determination using cell-free fetal DNA: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association 306(6): 627–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.1114
11. Devers, P. L., A. Cronister, K. E. Ormond, F. Facio, C. K. Brasington, and P. Flodman. 2013. Noninvasive prenatal testing/noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: The position of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Journal of Genetic Counseling 22(3): 291–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9564-0
12. Dolan, G., R. Iredale, R. Williams, and J. Ameen. 2004. Consumer use of the internet for health information: A survey of primary care patients. International Journal of Consumer Studies 28(2):147–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2003.00363.x
13. Etchegary, H., B. Potter H. Howley, 2008. The influence of experiential knowledge on prenatal screening and testing decisions. Genetic Testing 12(1): 115–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/gte.2007.0057
14. Gigerenzer, G., W. Gaissmaier, E. Kurz-Milcke, L. M. Schwartz, and S. Woloshin. 2007. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 8(2): 53–96.
15. Gregg, A. R., S. J. Gross, R. G. Best, 2013. ACMG statement on noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. Genetics in Medicine 15(5): 395–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.29
16. Haller, B. A. 2010. Representing disability in an ableist world: Essays on mass media. Louisville, KY: Advocado Press.
17. Hivon, M., P. Lehoux, J.-L. Denis, and M. Rock. 2010. Marginal voices in the media coverage of controversial health interventions: How do they contribute to the public understanding of science? Public Understanding of Science 19(1): 34–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662508088668
18. Holtzman, N. A. 1999. Are genetic tests adequately regulated? Science 286(5439): 409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5439.409
19. Holtzman, N. A., B. A. Bernhardt, E. Mountcastle-Shah, J. E. Rodgers, E. Tambor, and G. Geller. 2005. The quality of media reports on discoveries related to human genetic diseases. Public Health Genomics 8(3): 133–44.
20. Hsieh, H., and S. Shannon. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9): 1277–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
21. Hubbard, R. 2010. Abortion and disability: Who should and who should not inhabit the world. In The disability studies reader, 3rd ed., ed. L. J. Davis, 107–19. New York, NY: Routledge.
22. Inhorn, M. C. 2006 Defining women's health: A dozen messages from more than 150 ethnographies. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 20(3): 345–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/maq.2006.20.3.345
23. Ivry, T. 2009. Embodying culture: Pregnancy in Japan and Israel. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
24. Kittay, E. F., and L. Kittay. 2000. On the expressivity and ethics of selective abortion for disability: Conversations with my son. In Prenatal testing and disability rights, ed. E. Parens and A. Asch, 165–95. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
25. Kitzman, J. O., M. W. Snyder, M. Ventura, 2012. Noninvasive whole-genome sequencing of a human fetus. Science Translational Medicine 4(137): 137ra176–. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3004323
26. Klein, D. A. 2011. Medical disparagement of the disability experience: Empirical evidence for the “expressivist objection.” AJOB Primary Research 2(2): 8–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507716.2011.594484
27. Langlois, S., J.-A. Brock, R. D. Wilson, 2013. Current status in non-invasive prenatal detection of Down syndrome, trisomy 18, and trisomy 13 using cell-free DNA in maternal plasma. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 35(2):177–81.
28. Lindemann, H., and J. L. Nelson. 2008. The romance of the family. Hastings Center Report 38(4): 19–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hcr.0.0031
29. Lippman, A., and B. S. Wilfond. 1992. Twice-told tales: stories about genetic disorders. American Journal of Human Genetics 51(4): 936–7.
30. Lo, Y., M. S. Tein, T. K. Lau, 1998. Quantitative analysis of fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum: Implications for noninvasive prenatal diagnosis. American Journal of Human Genetics 62(4): 768–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/301800
31. Lulofs, N. 2013. Top 25 U.S. newspapers for March 2013. Available at: http://www.auditedmedia.com/news/blog/top-25-us-newspapers-for-march-2013.aspx (accessed August 27, 2014).
32. Lyerly, A. D., L. M. Mitchell, E. M. Armstrong 2007. Risks, values, and decision making surrounding pregnancy. Obstetrics & Gynecology 109(4): 979–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000258285.43499.4b
33. Mansfield, C., S. Hopfer, and T. M. Marteau. 1999. Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: A systematic literature review. Prenatal Diagnosis 19(9): 808–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0223(199909)19:9<808::AID-PD637>3.0.CO;2-B
34. Markens, S., C. H. Browner, and H. M. Preloran. 2010. Interrogating the dynamics between power, knowledge and pregnant bodies in amniocentesis decision making. Sociology of Health & Illness 32(1): 37–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01197.x
35. McCoyd, J. L. 2010. Authoritative knowledge, the technological imperative and women's responses to prenatal diagnostic technologies. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry 34(4): 590–614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11013-010-9189-4
36. Moynihan, R., L. Bero, D. Ross-Degnan, 2000. Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. New England Journal of Medicine 342(22): 1645–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200006013422206
37. Media Insight Project, T. Rosenstiel, J. Sonderman, 2014. The personal news cycle. Available at: http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/The_Media_Insight_Project_The_Personal_News_Cycle_Final.pdf (accessed August 25, 2014).
38. Moynihan, R., I. Heath, and D. Henry. 2002. Selling sickness: The pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering. British Medical Journal 324(7342): 886–91.
39. Mills, C. B., and E. Erzikova. 2012. Prenatal testing, disability, and termination: An examination of newspaper framing. Disability Studies Quarterly 32(3). Available at: http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1767/3096
40. National Center for Education Statistics. 2003. National assessment of adult literacy 2003. Available at: http://nces.edu.gov/naal
41. Natoli, J. L., D. L. Ackerman, S., McDermott, and J. G. Edwards. 2012. Prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: A systematic review of termination rates (1995–2011). Prenatal Diagnosis 32(2): 142–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pd.2910
42. Palomaki, G. E., E. M. Kloza, G. M. Lambert-Messerlian, 2011. DNA sequencing of maternal plasma to detect Down syndrome: An international clinical validation study. Genetics in Medicine 13(11): 913–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182368a0e
43. Pew Research Center. 2010a. Americans spending more time following the news. Available at: http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/652.pdf (accessed August 26, 2014).
44. Pew Research Center. 2010b. How news happens. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2010/01/11/how-news-happens(accessed August 26, 2014).
45. Pew Research Center. 2012. Where Americans get bews. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/media-indicators/where-americans-get-news (accessed August 26, 2014).
46. Potter, B. K., N. O'Reilly, H. Etchegary, 2008. Exploring informed choice in the context of prenatal testing: Findings from a qualitative study. Health Expectations 11(4): 355–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00493.x
47. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1983. Screening and counseling for genetic conditions: A report on the ethical, social, and legal implications of genetic screening, counseling, and education programs. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
48. Press, N. A. 2008. Genetic testing and screening. In From birth to death and bench to clinic: The Hastings Center bioethics briefing book for journalists, policymakers, and campaigns, 73–8. Garrison, NY: Hastings Center.
49. Press, N. A., and C. H. Browner. 1994. Collective silences, collective fictions. In Women and prenatal testing: Facing the challenges of genetic technology, ed. K. H. Rothenberg and E. J. Thomson, 209–10. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
50. Press, N. A., and C. H. Browner. 1997. Why women say yes to prenatal diagnosis. Social Science & Medicine 45(7): 979–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00011-7
51. Rapp, R. 2000. Testing women, testing the fetus: The social impact of amniocentesis in America. New York, NY: Routledge.
52. Riley, C. A. 2005. Disability and the media: Prescriptions for change. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
53. Saxton, M. 2010. Disability rights and selective abortion. In The disability studies reader, 3rd ed., ed. L. J. Davis, 120–32. New York, NY: Routledge.
54. Schwitzer, G. 2008. How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? An evaluation of 500 stories. PLoS Medicine 5(5): e95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095
55. Scully, J. L. 2008. Disability and genetics in the era of genomic medicine. Nature Reviews Genetics 9(10): 797–802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrg2453
56. Seavilleklein, V. 2009. Challenging the rhetoric of choice in prenatal screening. Bioethics 23(1): 68–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00674.x
57. Shapiro, J. P. 1993. No pity: People with disabilities forging a new civil rights movement. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
58. Shuchman, M., and M. S. Wilkes. 1997. Medical scientists and health news reporting: A case of miscommunication. Annals of Internal Medicine 126(12): 976–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-12-199706150-00008
59. St-Jacques, S., S. Grenier, M. Charland, J. C. Forest, F. Rousseau, and F. Légaré. 2008. Decisional needs assessment regarding down syndrome prenatal testing: A systematic review of the perceptions of women, their partners and health professionals. Prenatal Diagnosis 28(13): 1183–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pd.2059
60. Taylor, A. 2013. “Lives worth living”: Theorizing moral status and expressions of human life. Disability Studies Quarterly 33(4). Available at: http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3875/3404
61. Tremain, S. 2006a. Informed decision making in the context of prenatal screening. Patient Education and Counseling 63(1–2); L110–7.
62. Tremain, S. 2006b. Reproductive freedom, self-regulation, and the government of impairment in utero. Hypatia 21(1): 35–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2006.tb00963.x
63. van den Berg, M., D. R. Timmermans, L. P. Ten Kate, J. M. van Vugt, and G. van der Wal. 2005. Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening? Genetics in Medicine 7(5): 332–.
64. van den Heuvel, A., L. Chitty, E. Dormandy, 2010. Will the introduction of non-invasive prenatal diagnostic testing erode informed choices? An experimental study of health care professionals. Patient Education and Counseling 78(1): 24–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.05.014
65. Wilson, A., B. Bonevski, A. Jones, and D. Henry. 2009. Media reporting of health interventions: signs of improvement, but major problems persist. PLoS ONE 4(3): e4831. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004831