Ethical Considerations concerning Screening for Chromosome Aneuploidy: A Response to a 2007 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2008
Ethical Considerations concerning Screening for Chromosome Aneuploidy: A Response to a 2007 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin
Historically, maternal age 35 years or older at the time of delivery has been the marker to identify women with a statistically greater chance for having a child with a chromosome aneuploidy. This article will examine certain aspects of the recommendations made by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in 2007 to expand aneuploidy screening to all women before 20 weeks gestation. The article will focus on insights within the Catholic moral tradition that help to frame a reexamination of these recommendations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ACOG Practice Bulletin, “Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities: Clinical Considerations and Recommendations,”Obstetrics and Gynecology109 (2007): 217–227, 219.
2.
RasmussenS.A.“Population-Based Analyses of Mortality in Trisomy 13 and 18,”Pediatrics111 (2003): 777–784. Mortality for these trisomies may be as high as 93 percent. See C.J. Moran, J.B. Tay, and J.J. Morrison, “Ultrasound Detection and Perinatal Outcome of Fetal Trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in the Absence of Routine Fetal Anomaly Scan or Biochemical Acreening,” Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 20 (2002): 482-485.
3.
ACOG, “Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities,”224.
4.
“Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities,”, 219.
5.
Hayes suggests this recommendation is inline with most practice standards. See Hayes “First-Trimester Prenatal Screening Using Nuchal Translucency Combined with Maternal PAPP-A and Free Beta-hCG Levels,” http://www.hayesinc.com.
6.
ACOG, “Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities,”224.
7.
“Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities,”
8.
“Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities,”, 217.
9.
ChervenakFrank A., and McCulloughLaurence B.“Ethical Dimensions of Ultrasound Screening for Fetal Anomalies,”Annals New York Academy of Sciences847 (June 1998): 185–190; for the actual PICS process see 186, section 1-6.
10.
Chervenak, and McCullough“Ethical Dimensions of Ultrasound Screening for Fetal Anomalies,”185.
11.
“Ethical Dimensions of Ultrasound Screening for Fetal Anomalies,”, 186.
12.
“Ethical Dimensions of Ultrasound Screening for Fetal Anomalies,”
13.
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research Making Health Care Decisions: The Ethical and Legal Implications of Informed Consent in the Patient-Physician Relationship (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982).
14.
ACOG, “Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities,”219.
15.
Chervenak, and McCullough“Ethical Dimensions of Ultrasound Screening for Fetal Anomalies,”186, emphasis added.
16.
MennutiM.T., and DriscollD.A.“Screening for Down's Syndrome—Too Many Choices?”The New England Journal of Medicine349 (2003): 1471–1473.
17.
GekasJ.“Informed Consent to Serum Screening for Down Syndrome: Are Women Given Adequate Information?”Prenat Diagn19 (1999): 1–7.
18.
SmithD.K., ShawR.W., and MarteauT.M.“Informed Consent to Undergo Serum Screening for Down's Syndrome: The Gap Between Policy and Practice,”BMJ309 (1994): 776. See also: I.H. Ryder, “Prenatal Screening for Down Syndrome: A Dilemma for the Unsupported Midwife?” Midwifery 15 (1999): 16-23; H. Statham and J. Green, “Serum Screening for Down's Syndrome: Some Women's Experiences,” BMJ 307 (1993): 75-78.
19.
ACOG, “Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities,”221.
20.
WapnerR.“First-Trimester Screening for Trisomies 21 and 18,”The New England Journal of Medicine349 (2003): 1405–1413; K.O. Kagan, et al., “Relation Between Increased Fetal Nuchal Translucency Thickness and Chromosomal Defects,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 107 (2006): 6-10.
21.
PerniS.C.“Clinical Use of First-Trimester Aneuploidy Screening in a United States Population Can Replicated Data from Clinical Trials,”American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology194 (2006): 127–30.
22.
MaloneF.D., CanickJ.A., and BallR.H.“First-Trimester or Second-Trimester Screening, or Both, for Down's Syndrome,”The New England Journal of Medicine353 (2005): 2001–2011.
23.
ReddyU.M., and MennutiM.T.“Incorporating First-Trimester Down Syndrome Studies into Prenatal Screening: Executive Summary of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Workshop,”Obstetrics & Genecology107 (January 2006): 167–173; T.C. Chang, “Antenatal Screening for Down Syndrome in New Zealand: Time for a National Screening Policy?” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 46 (2006): 92-96.
24.
NicolaidesK.H.“Evidence-Based Obstetric Ethics and Informed Decision-Making by Pregnant Women about Invasive Diagnosis After First-Trimester Assessment of Risk for Trisomy 21,”American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology193 (2005): 322–326; M.C. Freda, et al., “Informed Consent for Maternal Serum Alphafetoprotein Screening in an Inner City Population: How Informed Is It?” JOGNN 27 (1998): 99-106; S. Mulvey, et al., “Do Women Prefer to Have Screening tests for Down Syndrome that Have the Lowest Screen-positive Rate or the Highest Detection Rate?” Prenatal Diagnosis 23 (2003): 828-832; J.P. Neilson, “Assessment of Fetal Nuchal Translucency Test for Down's Syndrome [comment],” The Lancet 350 (1997): 754; K. Rostant, L. Steed, and P. O'Leary, “Survey of the Knowledge, Attitudes and Experiences of Western Australian Women in Relation to Prenatal Screening and Diagnostic Procedures,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 43 (2003): 134-138.
25.
RiegelmanR.K.Studying a Study and Testing a Test, 4th ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000), 158–165.
26.
Hayes, “First-Trismester Prenatal Screening.”
27.
WaldN.J.“First and Second Trimester Antenatal Screening for Down's Syndrome: The Results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS),”Health Technol Assess7.11 (2003): 1–77.
28.
The authors recognize the controversy related to fixed cutoff values in clinical studies. The issue to illustrate here is the use of these arbitrary fixed cutoff values in the clinical context versus their use in public policy considerations as noted in the ACOG Practice Bulletin, see ACOG, “Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities,”217–227, 219-220.
29.
Freda“Informed Consent for Maternal Serum,”103.
30.
CasilethB.R.“Informed Consent: Why Are Its Goals Imperfectly Realized?”The New England Journal of Medicine302 (1980): 896–900; R.R. Faden, et al., “What Participants Understand about a Maternal Serum Alpha-Fetoprotein Screening Program,” American Journal of Public health 75 (1985): 1381-1384; T.M. Marteau, et al., “Anxiety, Knowledge and Satisfaction in Women Receiving False Positive Results on Routing Prenatal Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology 14 (1993): 185-196; and J. Sikkink, “Patient Acceptance of Prenatal Alpha-Fetoprotein Screening: A Preliminary Study,” Family Practice Research Journal 10 (1990): 123-131.
31.
Wapner“First-Trimester Screening for Trisomies 21 and 18,”1405–1413; Kagan, et al., “Relation Between Increased Fetal Nuchal Translucency Thickness and Chromosomal Defects,” 6-10.
32.
Perni“Clinical Use of First-Trimester Aneuploidy Screening,”127–30.
33.
MaloneCanick, and Ball“First-Trimester or Second-Trimester Screening,”2001–2011.
34.
MarteauT.M.“Perceived Risk Not Actual Risk Predicts Uptake of Amniocentesis,”International British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology98 (1991): 282–286.
35.
There are also studies to suggest that decisions to continue or terminate a pregnancy are related to a variety of issues when there is evidence of Down syndrome, and that only gestational age at the time of diagnosis is a significant independent predictor of pregnancy termination. See KramerR.L.“Determinants of Parental Decisions after the Prenatal Diagnosis of Down Syndrome,”American Journal of Medical Genetics79 (1998): 172–174.
36.
NCCB, Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Services (Washington, D.C.: NCCB, 2001), nos. 50, 54.
37.
Pius XII, “Address to the Italian Midwives” (1951).
38.
Some may argue that the fetus is at risk for being aborted as a result of these tests. That will be addressed later in this essay.
39.
WapnerSee R.J.“Chronic Villus Sampling,”in Protocols for High-Risk Pregnancies, eds. QueenanJ.T., HobbinsJ.C., and SpongC.Y. (Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 119 and 122.
40.
CaugheyA.B., HopkinsL.M., and NortonM.E.“Chorionic Villus Sampling Compared with Amniocentesis and the Difference in the Rate of Pregnancy Loss,”Obstetrics & Gynecology108 (2006): 614.
41.
Committee Opinion, “Mid-Trimester Amniocentesis Fetal Loss Rate,” J Obstet Gynaecol Can 29.7 (2007): 586-590; the authors recognize the debate on these data, see EddlemanK.A.“Pregnancy Loss Rates after Midtrimester Amniocentesis,”Obstet Gynecol108 (2006): 1067–72.
42.
I have been unable to find in the literature any rigorous ethical analysis of this practice, however.
43.
ACOG, “Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities,”222.
44.
SpencerK.“A Screening Program for Trisomy 21 at 10-14 Weeks Using Fetal Nuchal Translucency, Maternal Serum Free ß-Human Chorionic Gonadotropin and Pregnancy-Associated Plasma Protein-A,”Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology13 (2002): 231–237; F. Orlandi, et al., “First-Trimester Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy: Biochemistry and Nuchal Translucency,” Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 6 (1997): 381-386; T.E.J. Ind and N.M. Fisk, “Fetal Nuchal Translucency: Ultrasound Screening for Fetal Trisomy in the First Trimester of Pregnancy,” British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 102 (1995): 758-759.
45.
MansfieldC., HopferS., and MarteauT.M.“Termination Rates after Prenatal Diagnosis of Down Syndrome, Spina Bifida, Anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter Syndromes: A Systematic Literature Review,”Prenatal Diagnosis19 (1999): 808–812. This is similar to 90 percent results found by D.W. Britt, et al., “Determinants of Parental Decisions after the Prenatal Diagnosis of Down Syndrome: Bringing in Context,” American Journal of Medical Genetics 93 (1999): 410-416.
46.
NCCB, Ethical and Religious Directives, no. 70.
47.
See Kramer“Determinants of Parental Decisions,” in note 35 above. Even if the cooperation is mediate material, it may still not be permissible. If the percentage of elective terminations is accurate, the sheer volume may make the distinction between mediate and immediate merely academic.
48.
See, HarrisA.H.“The Cost-Effectiveness of Prenatal Ultrasound Screening for Trisomy 21,”International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care20 (2004): 464–468; M. Shohat, et al., “Prenatal Diagnosis of Down Syndrome: Ten Year Experience in the Israeli Population,” American Journal of Genetic Medicine Part A 122A (2003): 215-222.
49.
See, PlevritisS.K.“Cost-Effectiveness of Screening BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers with Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging,”Journal of the American Medical Association295 (2006): 2374–84.
50.
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Screening and Counseling for Genetic Conditions (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983), 84.
