Providing Unrestricted Access to Prenatal Testing Does Not Translate to Enhanced Autonomy

American Journal of Bioethics

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 39-41

  Ravitsky, Vardit ^a   Rousseau, Francois ^b   Laberge, Anne Marie ^c  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b Université Laval   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMAN; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS;

FEMALE; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS;

EID: 85008262663     PISSN: 15265161     EISSN: 15360075     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2016.1251651     Document Type: Note

References (13)

1. Amendola, L. M., G. P., Jarvik, M. C., Leo, et al. 2016. Performance of ACMG-AMP variant-interpretation guidelines among nine laboratories in the clinical sequencing exploratory research consortium. American Journal of Human Genetics 98 (6):1067–76.
2. Anderman, A., I., Blancquaert, S., Beauchamp, and V., Déry. 2008. Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age:A review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 86 (4):241–320.
3. Chen, S. C., and D. T., Wasserman. 2017. A framework for unrestricted prenatal whole-genome sequencing:Respecting and enhancing the autonomy of prospective parents. American Journal of Bioethics 17(1):3–18.
4. Dar, P., et al. 2014. Clinical experience and follow-up with large scale single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal aneuploidy testing. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 211:527.
5. Dougherty, M. J., C., Wicklund, and K. A., Johansen Taber. 2016. Challenges and opportunities for genomics education:Insights from an Institute of Medicine roundtable activity. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 36 (1):82–85.
6. EGAPP:Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. 2014. The EGAPP initiative:Lessons learned. Genetics in Medicine 16 (3):217–24. http://www.nature.com/gim/journal/v16/n3/full/gim2013110a.html
7. Gekas, J., L., Sylvie, R., Vardit, et al. 2016. Non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal chromosome abnormalities:Review of clinical and ethical issues. Application of Clinical Genetics 9:15–26.
8. Kaphingst, K. A., M., Blanchard, L., Milam, M., Pokharel, A., Elrick, and M. S., Goodman. 2016. Relationships between health literacy and genomics-related knowledge, self-efficacy, perceived importance, and communication in a medically underserved population. Journal of Health Communication 21 (Suppl. 1):58–68.
9. Khoury, M. J., et al. 2009. The scientific foundation for personal genomics:Recommendations from a National Institutes of Health–Centers for Disease Control and Prevention multidisciplinary workshop. Genetics in Medicine 11(8):559–67.
10. Manrai, A. K., B. H., Funke, H. L., Rehm, et al. 2016. Genetic misdiagnoses and the potential for health disparities. New England Journal of Medicine 375 (7):655–65.
11. McGuire, A. L., and W., Burke. 2008. An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing:Raiding the medical commons. Journal of the American Medical Association 300 (22):2669–71.
12. Vardit, R., 2015. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT):Identifying key clinical, ethical, social, legal and policy issues. Report for the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Available at:http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/NIPT-background-paper-8-Nov-2015-FINAL.pdf
13. Van Driest, S. L., Q. S., Wells, S., Stallings, et al. 2016. Association of arrhythmia-related genetic variants with phenotypes documented in electronic medical records. Journal of the American Medical Association 315 (1):47–57.