Prenatal Tarama Testleri ve Etik Kaygılar Üzerine Bir Derleme

Year 2024, , 478 - 488, 30.09.2024

Ayşe Figen Türkçapar , Nüket Örnek Büken

https://doi.org/10.31020/mutftd.1507529

Abstract

Gebelik döneminde uygulanan tarama testleri, kromozomal anormalliklerin erken teşhisi konusunda önemli tıbbi bilgiler sağlarken, kritik etik soruları da gündeme getirmektedir. Bu derleme makale, anöploidi amaçlı prenatal tarama testlerinin klinik kullanımıyla ilgili etik ikilemleri incelemektedir. Ana endişeler arasında, testlerin klinikte rutin olarak kullanılması, gelecekteki ebeveynler için bilgilendirmenin niteliği ve sağlanan bilgilendirilmiş onamın yeterliliği, seçici küretajın engellilik konusundaki toplumsal görüşler üzerindeki etkileri ve engelli bireylerin hakları ve onuru üzerindeki potansiyel etkileri yer almaktadır. Mevcut literatür ve etik çerçevelerin kapsamlı bir analizi aracılığıyla, prenatal bakımda tıbbi uygulama ve etik sorumluluğun antenatal dönemde fetal anomali tarama testi uygulamaları sırasındaki hekim tutumlarının tarama testleri için önerilen kavramlar, tıp etiğinin temel ilkeleri ve mesleki erdemler üzerinden tartışılması ve prenatal tarama testlerinin feminist etik açısından değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Tıbbi teknolojideki ilerlemeler ile tüm insan yaşamlarının özdeğerine duyulan saygıyı dengeleyen, engelli kapsayıcı bir doğum bakımına yönelme zamanı için gerekli daha bilinçli ve tarafsız bir tartışma ortamı hedeflenmiştir.

Keywords

Prenatal Tarama, Üreme Tercihi, Etik

Ethical Statement

Çıkar çatışması yoktur

Supporting Institution

Yok

A Review on Prenatal Screening Tests and Ethical Concerns

Abstract

The screening tests applied during pregnancy provide important medical information for the early diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities, yet they also raise critical ethical questions. This review article examines the ethical dilemmas associated with the clinical use of prenatal screening tests for aneuploidy. Key concerns include the routine use of these tests in clinical settings, the nature of informed consent for prospective parents, the adequacy of the information provided, the societal views on selective termination in relation to disability, and the potential impacts on the rights and dignity of disabled individuals. Through a comprehensive analysis of current literature and ethical frameworks, this article aims to discuss the medical practice and ethical responsibilities in prenatal care during the implementation of fetal anomaly screening tests, using concepts proposed for screening tests within the framework of medical ethics' fundamental principles and professional virtues, and evaluating prenatal screening tests from a feminist ethics perspective. It supports the need for a more informed and impartial debate aimed at disability-inclusive maternity care that balances respect for the inherent value of all human life with advances in medical technology.

Keywords

Prenatal Screening, Reproductive Choice, Ethics

References

• 1. Screening programmes: a short guide. Erişim adresi: https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289054782 Erişim tarihi 01.06.2024.
• 2. World Health Organization. Wilson JMG & Jungner G. The principles and practice of screening for disease. ‎1966. Erişim adresi: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/208882.
• 3. Andermann A, et al. Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull World Health Organ 2008;86(4):317-319.
• 4. NICE 2008 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]. 2008. Antenatal care for uncomplicated pregnancies: Clinical guideline (CG62). London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Erişim adresi: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg62. Erişim tarihi 10.01.2023.
• 5. Godard B, et al. Provision of genetic services in Europe: current practices and issues. Eur J Hum Genet 2003;11 (Suppl 2):13-48. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201111.
• 6. Nuffield Council on Bioethics [NCB]. 2006. Genetic screening: Ethical issues. Erişim adresi: https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Critical-care-decisions.pdfttp://nuffieldbioethics.org/project/genetic-screening/. Erişim tarihi 09.06.2023.
• 7. The Health Council of the Netherlands [HCN]. 2008. Screening: Between hope and hype. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands. Erişim adresi: https://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/sites/default/files/200805E_0.pdf. Erişim tarihi 09.06.2023.
• 8. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Halk Sağlığı Genel Müdürlüğü Kadın ve Üreme Sağlığı Dairesi Başkanlığı Doğum Öncesi Bakım Yönetim Rehberi, Ankara 2018. Erişim adresi: https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/depo/Yayinlarimiz/Rehberler/dogum_oncesi_bakim_08-01-2019_1.pdf. Erişim tarihi 9.06.2023.
• 9. Ralston SJ, et al. Pregnancy outcomes after prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97(5 Pt 1):729-733.
• 10. Bernhardt BA, et al. Women's experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results. Genet Med 2013;15(2):139-145. doi:10.1038/gim.2012.113.
• 11. Kuppermann M, et al. Procedure-related miscarriages and Down syndrome-affected births: implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferences. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96(4):511-516.
• 12. Farrell RM, Allyse MA. Key Ethical Issues in Prenatal Genetics: An Overview. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2018;45(1):127-141.
• 13. de Jong A, de Wert GM. Prenatal screening: an ethical agenda for the near future. Bioethics 2015;29(1):46-55.
• 14. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of bioethics. 7th ed. Oxford University Press; 2013.
• 15. FIGO Ethics and Professionalism Guidelines for Obstetrics and Gynecology Edited by Frank A. Chervenak MD, MMM, and Laurence B. McCullough, Ph.D Published by FIGO FIGO House, 10 Theed Street, London SE1 8ST, UK. Contact: [e-mail]; Web: www.figo.org© 2021 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics ISBN 978-1-5272-9842-2.
• 16. Jonsen AR, Siegler M, Winslade WJ. Ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. McGraw Hill; 2015, 8th edition. (Cross Ref.)
• 17. Dugdale LS, Siegler M, Rubin DT. Medical professionalism and the doctor-patient relationship. Perspect Biol Med 2008;51(4):547-553. doi:10.1353/pbm.0.0054.
• 18. Varkey B. Principles of Clinical Ethics and Their Application to Practice. Med Princ Pract 2021;30(1):17-28. 19. Practice Bulletin No. 163: Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 2016;127(5): e123-e137.
• 20. Anne BS Giersch, Congenital cytogenetic abnormalities. Erişim adresi: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/congenital-cytogenetic-abnormalities? Erişim tarihi 06.06.2023.
• 21. Loane M, et al. Twenty-year trends in the prevalence of Down syndrome and other trisomies in Europe: impact of maternal age and prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21(1):27-33.
• 22. Egan JF, et al. Demographic differences in Down syndrome livebirths in the US from 1989 to 2006. Prenat Diagn 2011;31(4):389-394.
• 23. Ekelund CK, et al. First-trimester screening for trisomy 21 in Denmark: implications for detection and birth rates of trisomy 18 and trisomy 13. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;38(2):140-144.
• 24. Nelson KE, Hexem KR, Feudtner C. Inpatient hospital care of children with trisomy 13 and trisomy 18 in the United States. Pediatrics 2012;129(5):869-876.
• 25. Peroos S, et al. Longevity and Patau syndrome: what determines survival?. BMJ Case Rep 2012;2012:bcr0620114381. Published 2012 Dec 6.
• 26. Nelson KE, Hexem KR, Feudtner C. Inpatient hospital care of children with trisomy 13 and trisomy 18 in the United States. Pediatrics 2012;129(5):869-876.
• 27. Palomaki GE, Messerlian GM, Halliday JV. Prenatal screening for common aneuploidies using cell-free DNA. Erişim adresi: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/prenatal-screening-for-common-fetal-aneuploidies-cell-freednatest? Erişim tarihi 01.06.2024
• 28. Andermann A, et al. Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull World Health Organ 2008;86(4):317-319.
• 29. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics; Committee on Genetics, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Screening for Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 226. Obstet Gynecol 2020;136(4): e48-e69.
• 30. Stapleton G. Qualifying choice: ethical reflection on the scope of prenatal screening. Med Health Care Philos 2017;20(2):195-205.
• 31. Clarkeburn H. Parental duties and untreatable genetic conditions. J Med Ethics 2000;26(5):400-403.
• 32. Mooney G, Lange M. Ante-natal screening: what constitutes 'benefit'? Soc Sci Med 1993;37(7):873-878.
• 33. Vanstone M, et al. Perspectives of Pregnant People and Clinicians on Noninvasive Prenatal Testing: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Meta-synthesis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser 2019;19(5):1-38.
• 34. Foster MW, Royal CD, Sharp RR. The routinisation of genomics and genetics: implications for ethical practices. J Med Ethics 2006;32(11):635-638.
• 35. Yanikkerem E, et al. A survey of the awareness, use and attitudes of women towards Down syndrome screening. J Clin Nurs 2013;22(11-12):1748-1758.
• 36. Karakuş R. Gebelerin İkili ya da Üçlü Testler Hakkındaki Bilgi Düzeyinin Araştırılması. JGON 2015;12(5):174-8.
• 37. Ergün P, et al. Pregnancy womans measuring the level of knowledge for triple screen test and others during pregnancy. TAF Preventive Medicine Bulletin 2011; 10(4), 403-408.
• 38. Pop-Tudose ME, et al. Attitude, knowledge and informed choice towards prenatal screening for Down Syndrome: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018;18(1):439.
• 39. Rabiee M, Jouhari Z, Pirasteh A. Knowledge of Prenatal Screening, Down Syndrome, Amniocentesis, and Related Factors among Iranian Pregnant Women: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery 2019;7(2):150-160.
• 40. Farrell RM, Nutter B, Agatisa PK. Meeting patients' education and decision-making needs for first trimester prenatal aneuploidy screening. Prenat Diagn 2011;31(13):1222-1228.
• 41. Kuppermann M, et al. Effect of enhanced information, values clarification, and removal of financial barriers on use of prenatal genetic testing: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014;312(12):1210-1217.
• 42. Barış M, İlkılıç İ. Prenatal Tarama ve Teşhis Prosedürlerinin Gebe Kadınlar, Engelliler ve Toplum Üzerindeki Olası Etkilerine Dair Normatif Bir Değerlendirme. Anadolu Klin 2018;23(2):111-20.
• 43. FIGO Ethics and Professionalism Guidelines for Obstetrics and Gynecology Edited by Frank A. Chervenak MD, MMM, and Laurence B. McCullough, Ph.D Published by FIGO FIGO House, 10 Theed Street, London SE1 8ST, UK. Contact: [e-mail]; Web: www.figo.org© 2021 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics ISBN 978-1-5272-9842-2.Guideline 023: Prenatal Diagnosis and Screening P29.
• 44. Robinson H. Prenatal Testing, Disability, and the Ethical Society. New Bioeth 2023;29(3):195-201. 45. Dotters-Katz SK, et al. Management Considerations for Ongoing Pregnancies Complicated by Trisomy 13 and 18. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2016;71(5):295-300.
• 46. Wade CH. What Is the Psychosocial Impact of Providing Genetic and Genomic Health Information to Individuals? An Overview of Systematic Reviews. Hastings Cent Rep 2019;49(Suppl 1): S88-S96.
• 47. Dondorp W, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening [published correction appears in Eur J Hum Genet. 2015 Nov;23(11):1592. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.109]. Eur J Hum Genet 2015;23(11):1438-1450.