Cargando…
How will new genetic technologies, such as gene editing, change reproductive decision-making? Views of high-risk couples
Couples at increased risk of having offspring with a specific genetic disorder who want to avoid having an affected child have several reproductive options including prenatal diagnosis (PND) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). In the future, non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD), germline ge...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7852899/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32773775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00706-8 |
_version_ | 1783645885791469568 |
---|---|
author | van Dijke, Ivy Lakeman, Phillis Mathijssen, Inge B. Goddijn, Mariëtte Cornel, Martina C. Henneman, Lidewij |
author_facet | van Dijke, Ivy Lakeman, Phillis Mathijssen, Inge B. Goddijn, Mariëtte Cornel, Martina C. Henneman, Lidewij |
author_sort | van Dijke, Ivy |
collection | PubMed |
description | Couples at increased risk of having offspring with a specific genetic disorder who want to avoid having an affected child have several reproductive options including prenatal diagnosis (PND) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). In the future, non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD), germline gene editing (GGE) and somatic gene editing (SGE) might become available. This study explores if, and how, availability of new genetic technologies, including NIPD, GGE, SGE, would change reproductive decision-making of high-risk couples. In 2018, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 genetically at-risk couples. Couples previously had received genetic counselling for PND and PGT, and in most cases opted for (one of) these techniques, at one Dutch Clinical Genetics Center between 2013 and 2017. Considerations participants mentioned regarding the hypothetical use of NIPD, GGE and SGE, seem similar to considerations regarding PND and PGT and are reflected in underlying concepts. These include safety and burden for mother and child, and moral considerations. Couples generally favoured NIPD over PND as this would be safe and enables earlier diagnosis. Increased opportunities of having a ‘healthy’ embryo and less embryo disposal were considerations in favour of GGE. Some regarded GGE as unsafe and feared slippery slope scenarios. Couples were least favourable towards SGE compared to choosing for a genetic reproductive technology, because of the perceived burden for the affected offspring. With the possibly growing number of technological options, understanding high risk couples’ perspectives can assist in navigating the reproductive decision-making process. Counsellors should be prepared to counsel on more and complex reproductive options. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7852899 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78528992021-02-08 How will new genetic technologies, such as gene editing, change reproductive decision-making? Views of high-risk couples van Dijke, Ivy Lakeman, Phillis Mathijssen, Inge B. Goddijn, Mariëtte Cornel, Martina C. Henneman, Lidewij Eur J Hum Genet Article Couples at increased risk of having offspring with a specific genetic disorder who want to avoid having an affected child have several reproductive options including prenatal diagnosis (PND) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). In the future, non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD), germline gene editing (GGE) and somatic gene editing (SGE) might become available. This study explores if, and how, availability of new genetic technologies, including NIPD, GGE, SGE, would change reproductive decision-making of high-risk couples. In 2018, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 genetically at-risk couples. Couples previously had received genetic counselling for PND and PGT, and in most cases opted for (one of) these techniques, at one Dutch Clinical Genetics Center between 2013 and 2017. Considerations participants mentioned regarding the hypothetical use of NIPD, GGE and SGE, seem similar to considerations regarding PND and PGT and are reflected in underlying concepts. These include safety and burden for mother and child, and moral considerations. Couples generally favoured NIPD over PND as this would be safe and enables earlier diagnosis. Increased opportunities of having a ‘healthy’ embryo and less embryo disposal were considerations in favour of GGE. Some regarded GGE as unsafe and feared slippery slope scenarios. Couples were least favourable towards SGE compared to choosing for a genetic reproductive technology, because of the perceived burden for the affected offspring. With the possibly growing number of technological options, understanding high risk couples’ perspectives can assist in navigating the reproductive decision-making process. Counsellors should be prepared to counsel on more and complex reproductive options. Springer International Publishing 2020-08-09 2021-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7852899/ /pubmed/32773775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00706-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 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 license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license 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 license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article van Dijke, Ivy Lakeman, Phillis Mathijssen, Inge B. Goddijn, Mariëtte Cornel, Martina C. Henneman, Lidewij How will new genetic technologies, such as gene editing, change reproductive decision-making? Views of high-risk couples |
title | How will new genetic technologies, such as gene editing, change reproductive decision-making? Views of high-risk couples |
title_full | How will new genetic technologies, such as gene editing, change reproductive decision-making? Views of high-risk couples |
title_fullStr | How will new genetic technologies, such as gene editing, change reproductive decision-making? Views of high-risk couples |
title_full_unstemmed | How will new genetic technologies, such as gene editing, change reproductive decision-making? Views of high-risk couples |
title_short | How will new genetic technologies, such as gene editing, change reproductive decision-making? Views of high-risk couples |
title_sort | how will new genetic technologies, such as gene editing, change reproductive decision-making? views of high-risk couples |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7852899/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32773775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00706-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vandijkeivy howwillnewgenetictechnologiessuchasgeneeditingchangereproductivedecisionmakingviewsofhighriskcouples AT lakemanphillis howwillnewgenetictechnologiessuchasgeneeditingchangereproductivedecisionmakingviewsofhighriskcouples AT mathijsseningeb howwillnewgenetictechnologiessuchasgeneeditingchangereproductivedecisionmakingviewsofhighriskcouples AT goddijnmariette howwillnewgenetictechnologiessuchasgeneeditingchangereproductivedecisionmakingviewsofhighriskcouples AT cornelmartinac howwillnewgenetictechnologiessuchasgeneeditingchangereproductivedecisionmakingviewsofhighriskcouples AT hennemanlidewij howwillnewgenetictechnologiessuchasgeneeditingchangereproductivedecisionmakingviewsofhighriskcouples |