Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27631408›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2017

Qualifying choice: ethical reflection on the scope of prenatal screening.

Greg Stapleton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. A Capabilities Approach to Prenatal Screening for Fetal Abnormalities.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Noninvasive prenatal testing to analyze the fetal genome.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Greg StapletonDepartment of Health, Ethics and Society, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. greg.stapleton@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8009-3195

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the near future developments in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) may soon provide couples with the opportunity to test for and diagnose a much broader range of heritable and congenital conditions than has previously been possible. Inevitably, this has prompted much ethical debate on the possible implications of NIPT for providing couples with opportunities for reproductive choice by way of routine prenatal screening. In view of the possibility to test for a significantly broader range of genetic conditions with NIPT, the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) and American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) recommend that, pending further debate, prenatal screening for reproductive choice should only be offered where concerning serious congenital conditions and childhood disorders. In support of this recommendation, the ESHG and ASHG discuss a number of ethical issues on which they prompt further debate: the informational privacy of the future child, the trivialization of abortion, the risk of information overload, and issues of distributive justice. This paper responds to this call with further reflection on each ethical issue and how it relates to the moral justification of providing couples with opportunities for meaningful reproductive choice. The paper concludes that whilst there may be good reasons for qualifying the scope of any unsolicited prenatal screening offer to serious congenital conditions and childhood disorders, if prenatal screening is justified for providing couples with opportunities for meaningful reproductive choice, then health services may have obligations to empower couples with the same opportunity where concerning other conditions.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingChoice BehaviorFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMoralsPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisAbortionEthicsNon-invasive prenatal testingPrenatal screeningReproductive autonomyReproductive choice

Identifiers

PMID27631408
PMCPMC5487727

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.