Screening of Newborns for Disorders with High Benefit-Risk Ratios Should Be Mandatory

Abstract

Newborn screening has evolved to include an increasingly complex spectrum of diseases, raising concerns that screening should be optional and require parental consent. Early detection of disorders like PKU and MCAD is essential to prevent serious disability and death in affected children. These are examples of high benefit-risk ratio disorders because of the irrefutable health benefits of early detection, coupled with the low risks of treatment. The dire consequences of not diagnosing an infant with a treatable disorder because of parental refusal to screen are wholly unacceptable. Thus, we believe that newborn screening for disorders with high benefit-risk ratios should continue to be mandatory.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

S. D.

Grosse ,

C. A.

Boyle ,

Kenneson ,

M. J.

Khoury , and

B. S.

Wilfond , “From Public Health Emergency to Public Health Service: The Implications of Evolving Criteria for Newborn screening Panels,” Pediatrics 117, no. 3 (2006): 923-929.

L. F.

Ross

, “Mandatory Versus Voluntary Consent for Newborn Screening?” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20, no. 4 (2010): 299-328; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “CDC Grand Rounds: Newborn Screening and Improved Outcomes,” MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 61, no. 21 (2012): 390-393, available at <http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6121a2.htm> (last visited April 21, 2016).

C. G.

Arnold

, “Two Faces of Patient Advocacy: The Current Controversy in Newborn Screening,” Journal of Medical Ethics 40, no. 8 (2014): 558-562.

Kilakkathi

, Report by the Council for Responsible Genetics, Newborn Screening in America: Problems and Policies (2012): 1-43, available at <http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/WNMAKEPP1P.pdf> (last visited April 21, 2016); A. M. Whelan, “That's My Baby: Why the State's Interest in Promoting Public Health Does Not Justify Residual Newborn Blood Spot Research without Parental Consent,” Minnesota Law Review 98, no. 1 (2013): 419-453.

President's Council on Bioethics (U.S.), The Changing Moral Focus of Newborn screening: An Ethical Analysis by the President's Council on Bioethics, (December 2008), available at <http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/pcbe/reports/newborn_screening/Newborn%20Screening%20for%20the%20web.pdf> (last visited April 21, 2016).

J. M. G.

Wilson and

Jungner , “Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease,” World Health Organization (WHO) Bulletin, Public Health Papers, no. 34 (1968), available at <http://whqlibdoc.who.int/php/WHO_PHP_34.pdf> (last visited April 21, 2016).

See supra note 3.

See supra notes 3 and 6.

J. J.

Pitt

, “Newborn Screening,” The Clinical Biochemist Review 31, no. 2 (2010): 57-68.

10.

See CDC, supra note 2; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Discretionary Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children, Recommended Uniform Screening Panel (as of February 2016), available at <http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/mchbadvisory/heritabledisorders/> (last visited April 21, 2016).

11.

B. L.

Therrell ,

Johnson , and

Williams , “Status of Newborn Screening Programs in the United States,” Pediatrics 117, no. 5 Pt 2 (2006): S212-S252.

12.

B. K.

Potter ,

Etchegary ,

S. G.

Nicholls ,

B. J.

Wilson ,

S. M.

Craigie , and

M. H.

Araia , “Education and Parental Involvement in Decision-Making about Newborn Screening: Understanding Goals to Clarify Content,” Journal of Genetic Counseling 24, no. 3 (2015): 400-408.

13.

Id.

14.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Newborn Screening Laboratory Bulletin (October 2008), available at <http://www.cdc.gov/nbslabbulletin/pdf/nslb_bulletin.pdf> (last visited April 21, 2016).

15.

See supra note 13;

Blout ,

Walsh Vockley ,

Gaviglio ,

Fox ,

Croke , and

Williamson Dean , The Newborn Screening Task Force on Behalf of the NSGC Public Policy Committee, “Newborn Screening: Education, Consent, and the Residual Blood Spot. The Position of the National Society of Genetic Counselors,” Journal of Genetic Counseling 23, no. 1 (2014): 16-19.

16.

See Blout, supra note 15.

17.

Id.

18.

Id.;

M. H.

Lewis ,

Goldenberg ,

Anderson ,

Rothwell , and

Botkin , “State Laws Regarding the Retention and Use of Residual Newborn screening Blood Samples,” Pediatrics 127, no. 4 (2011): 703-712.

19.

See Lewis, supra note 17.

20.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Announces Proposal to Improve Rules Protecting Human Research Subjects, News Release, July 22 2011, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/nprm-home/> (last visited May 17, 2016).

21.

See supra note 19.

22.

Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2014, Public Law 113-240 § 128 STAT. 2851 (2014), available at <https://www.congress.gov/113/plaws/publ240/PLAW113publ240.pdf> (last visited April 21, 2016).

23.

Feuchtbaum ,

Cunningham , and

Sciortino , “Questioning the Need for Informed Consent: A Case Study of California's Experience with a Pilot Newborn screening Research Project,” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2, no. 3 (2007): 3-14.

24.

See Ross, supra note 2; supra note 3.

25.

See supra note 18.

26.

See Blout, supra note 15.

27.

Olson and

A. C.

Berger , Challenges and Opportunities in Using Residual Newborn screening Samples for Translational Research: Workshop Summary, Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health (Washington, D. C.: The National Academies Press, 2010), available at <http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12981> (last visited April 21, 2016).

28.

J. R.

Botkin ,

A. J.

Goldenberg ,

Rothwell ,

R. A.

Anderson , and

M. H.

Lewis , “Retention and Research Use of Residual Newborn screening Bloodspots,” Pediatrics 131, no. 1 (2013): 120-127.

29.

See supra note 26;

Fost

, “Genetic Diagnosis and Treatment: Ethical Considerations,” American Journal of Disease of Children 147, no. 11 (1993): 1190-1195.

30.

See Ross, supra note 2.

31.

See Fost, supra note 29.

32.

J. P.

Brosco ,

L. M.

Sanders ,

M. I.

Seider , and

A. C.

Dunn , “Adverse Medical Outcomes of Early Newborn screening Programs for Phenylketonuria,” Pediatrics 122, no. 1 (2008): 192-197.

33.

Timmermans and

Buchbinder , “Patients-in-Waiting: Living between Sickness and Health in the Genomics Era,” Journal of Health Social Behavior 51, no. 4 (2010): 408-423.

34.

M. P.

Wasserstein ,

Andriola ,

Arnold ,

Aron ,

Duffner ,

R. W.

Erbe ,

M. L.

Escolar ,

Estrella ,

Galvin-Parton ,

Iglesias ,

D. M.

Kay ,

D. F.

Kronn ,

Kurtzberg ,

J. M.

Kwon ,

T. J.

Langan ,

P. A.

Levy ,

T. P.

Naidich ,

J. J.

Orsini ,

J. E.

Pellegrino ,

J. M.

Provenzale ,

D. A.

Wenger , and M. Caggana for the New York State Krabbe Consortium, “Clinical Outcomes of Newborn Screening for Krabbe Disease in New York State,” Genetics in Medicine (In Press, 2016).

35.

D. A.

Wenger

“Krabbe Disease,”

Updated March 2011, in

R. A.

Pagon ,

M. P.

Adam ,

T. D.

Bird ,

C. R.

Dolan ,

C. T.

Fong and

Stephens , eds., GeneReviews [Internet], (Seattle, WA: University of Washington, 1993-2013), available at <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1238/> (last visited April 21, 2016).

36.

See supra note 3.

37.

See supra note 3.

38.

See Fost, supra note 29.

39.

Waldo

, “The Texas Newborn Bloodspot Saga Has Reached a Sad – and Preventable – Conculsion,” Genomics Lab Report [Internet], a publication of the law firm Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson (March 16, 2010), available at <http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/03/16/the-texas-newborn-bloodspot-saga-has-reached-a-sad-and-preventable-conclusion/> (last visited April 21, 2016); Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), Lawsuit Settlement Allows Newborn Screening to Program to Move Forward, News Release (January 13, 2014), available at <http://www.health.state.mn.us/news/pressrel/2014/newbornscreening011314.html> (last visited April 21, 2016).

40.

Id. (MDH).

41.

Id. (MDH).

42.

See Ross, supra note 2.

43.

See Fost, supra note 29.

44.

Id.

45.

Id.

46.

See supra note 14.

47.

Pass ,

N. S.

Green ,

Lorey ,

Sherwin , and

A. M.

Comeau , “Pilot Programs in Newborn Screening,” Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 12, no. 4 (2006): 293-300.

48.

R. R.

Howell

, “We Need Expanded Newborn Screening,” Pediatrics 117, no. 5 (2006): 1800-1805.

49.

See supra note 23.

50.

Id.

51.

Id.

52.

See Pass, supra note 47.

53.

J. R.

Botkin ,

M. H.

Lewis ,

M. S.

Watson ,

K. J.

Swoboda ,

Anderson ,

S. A.

Berry ,

Bonhomme ,

J. P.

Brosco ,

A. M.

Comeau ,

Goldenberg ,

Goldman ,

Therrell ,

Levy-Fisch ,

Tarini , and

Wilfond

on behalf of the Bioethics and Legal Work Group of the Newborn Screening Translational Research Network, “Parental Permission for Pilot Newborn Screening Research: Guidelines from the NBSTRN,’ Pediatrics 133, no. 2 (2014): e410-e417.

54.

See supra note 48.

55.

See supra note 23.

56.

See Fost, supra note 29.

57.

See Ross, supra note 2.

58.

See supra note 5.

59.

T. C.

Davis ,

S. G.

Humiston ,

C. L.

Arnold ,

J. A.

Bocchini Jr.,,

P. F.

Bass, 3rd,

E. M.

Kennen ,

Bocchini ,

Kyler , and

Lloyd-Puryear , “Recommendations for Effective Newborn screening Communication: Results of Focus Groups with Parents, Providers, and Experts,” Pediatrics 117, no. 5 Pt 2 (2006): S326-S340.

60.

See supra note 29.

61.

See supra note 59.

62.

See supra note 59;

Tluczek ,

K. M.

Orland ,

S. W.

Nick , and

R. L.

Brown , “Newborn Screening: An Appeal for Improved Parent Education,” Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing 23, no. 4 (2009): 326-334.

63.

Table 1 modified from supra note 3;

Andermann ,

Blancquaert ,

Beauchamp , and

Dery , “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, no. 4 (2008): 317-319, available at <http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/4/07-050112/en/> (last visited April 21, 2016).