Cargando…

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): is routinization problematic?

BACKGROUND: The introduction and wide application of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has triggered further evolution of routines in the practice of prenatal diagnosis. ‘Routinization’ of prenatal diagnosis however has been associated with hampered informed choice and eugenic attitudes or outcom...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rehmann-Sutter, Christoph, Timmermans, Daniëlle R. M., Raz, Aviad
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10604734/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37884894
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00970-5
_version_ 1785126906297843712
author Rehmann-Sutter, Christoph
Timmermans, Daniëlle R. M.
Raz, Aviad
author_facet Rehmann-Sutter, Christoph
Timmermans, Daniëlle R. M.
Raz, Aviad
author_sort Rehmann-Sutter, Christoph
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The introduction and wide application of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has triggered further evolution of routines in the practice of prenatal diagnosis. ‘Routinization’ of prenatal diagnosis however has been associated with hampered informed choice and eugenic attitudes or outcomes. It is viewed, at least in some countries, with great suspicion in both bioethics and public discourse. However, it is a heterogeneous phenomenon that needs to be scrutinized in the wider context of social practices of reproductive genetics. In different countries with their different regulatory frameworks, different patterns of routines emerge that have different ethical implications. This paper discusses an ethics of routines informed by the perspectives of organizational sociology and psychology, where a routine is defined as a repetitive, recognizable pattern of interdependent organizational actions that is carried out by multiple performers. We favour a process approach that debunks the view – which gives way to most of the concerns – that routines are always blindly performed. If this is so, routines are therefore not necessarily incompatible with responsible decision-making. Free and informed decision-making can, as we argue, be a key criterion for the ethical evaluation of testing routines. If free and informed decision-making by each pregnant woman is the objective, routines in prenatal testing may not be ethically problematic, but rather are defensible and helpful. We compare recent experiences of NIPT routines in the context of prenatal screening programmes in Germany, Israel and the Netherlands. Notable variation can be observed between these three countries (i) in the levels of routinization around NIPT, (ii) in the scope of routinization, and (iii) in public attitudes toward routinized prenatal testing. CONCLUSION: An ethics of routines in the field of prenatal diagnostics should incorporate and work with the necessary distinctions between levels and forms of routines, in order to develop sound criteria for their evaluation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10604734
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106047342023-10-28 Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): is routinization problematic? Rehmann-Sutter, Christoph Timmermans, Daniëlle R. M. Raz, Aviad BMC Med Ethics Research Article BACKGROUND: The introduction and wide application of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has triggered further evolution of routines in the practice of prenatal diagnosis. ‘Routinization’ of prenatal diagnosis however has been associated with hampered informed choice and eugenic attitudes or outcomes. It is viewed, at least in some countries, with great suspicion in both bioethics and public discourse. However, it is a heterogeneous phenomenon that needs to be scrutinized in the wider context of social practices of reproductive genetics. In different countries with their different regulatory frameworks, different patterns of routines emerge that have different ethical implications. This paper discusses an ethics of routines informed by the perspectives of organizational sociology and psychology, where a routine is defined as a repetitive, recognizable pattern of interdependent organizational actions that is carried out by multiple performers. We favour a process approach that debunks the view – which gives way to most of the concerns – that routines are always blindly performed. If this is so, routines are therefore not necessarily incompatible with responsible decision-making. Free and informed decision-making can, as we argue, be a key criterion for the ethical evaluation of testing routines. If free and informed decision-making by each pregnant woman is the objective, routines in prenatal testing may not be ethically problematic, but rather are defensible and helpful. We compare recent experiences of NIPT routines in the context of prenatal screening programmes in Germany, Israel and the Netherlands. Notable variation can be observed between these three countries (i) in the levels of routinization around NIPT, (ii) in the scope of routinization, and (iii) in public attitudes toward routinized prenatal testing. CONCLUSION: An ethics of routines in the field of prenatal diagnostics should incorporate and work with the necessary distinctions between levels and forms of routines, in order to develop sound criteria for their evaluation. BioMed Central 2023-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC10604734/ /pubmed/37884894 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00970-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Rehmann-Sutter, Christoph
Timmermans, Daniëlle R. M.
Raz, Aviad
Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): is routinization problematic?
title Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): is routinization problematic?
title_full Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): is routinization problematic?
title_fullStr Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): is routinization problematic?
title_full_unstemmed Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): is routinization problematic?
title_short Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): is routinization problematic?
title_sort non-invasive prenatal testing (nipt): is routinization problematic?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10604734/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37884894
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00970-5
work_keys_str_mv AT rehmannsutterchristoph noninvasiveprenataltestingniptisroutinizationproblematic
AT timmermansdaniellerm noninvasiveprenataltestingniptisroutinizationproblematic
AT razaviad noninvasiveprenataltestingniptisroutinizationproblematic