OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Journal of genetic counseling
06, 2023;32 (3): 576-583.

Reproductive deliberation: Supporting autonomous decision making in prenatal genetic counseling.

Chanelle Warton, Molly Johnston, Catherine Mills
Author Information
  1. Chanelle Warton: Monash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia. ORCID
  2. Molly Johnston: Monash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia. ORCID
  3. Catherine Mills: Monash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia. ORCID
PMID: 36765016 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1682

Abstract

As both the scope and popularity of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) have expanded, debate has emerged about the extent to which this test enhances or undermines reproductive autonomy. Genetic counseling is crucial to support autonomy in the context of making complex and value-laden decisions about reproductive care following high-chance results from NIPT. Two models of post-test prenatal genetic counseling have been proposed; the first of these, non-directive counseling, is the predominant model, while shared decision making is an alternative model deriving from patient care for chronic conditions. In this paper, we argue that neither of these approaches is adequate for counseling after NIPT to support reproductive autonomy. Instead, then, we propose an alternative approach that we call reproductive deliberation. This approach to prenatal genetic counseling simultaneously recognizes the relationality of the counseling encounter and supports the decision making capacity and decisional responsibility of the pregnant person.

Keywords

NIPT decision making ethics genetic counseling prenatal testing reproductive autonomy

References

  1. Ahmed, S., Yi, H., Dong, D., Zhu, J., Jafri, H., Rashid, Y., Ngan, O. M., & Ahmed, M. (2018). Interpretations of autonomous decision-making in antenatal genetic screening among women in China, Hong Kong and Pakistan. European Journal of Human Genetics, 26(4), 495-504.
  2. Association of Ontario Midwives. (2017). Prenatal genetic screening. https://www.ontariomidwives.ca/prenatal-genetic-screening Retrieved November 28, 2022.
  3. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  4. Begović, D. (2019). Prenatal testing: Does reproductive autonomy succeed in dispelling eugenic concerns? Bioethics, 33(8), 958-964. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12602
  5. Biesecker, B. (2000). Reproduction, ethics, the ethics of reproductive genetic counseling: Nondirectiveness. In T. H. Murray & M. J. Mehlman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of ethical, legal, and policy issues in biotechnology (pp. 977-983). Wiley.
  6. Bomhof-Roordink, H., Fischer, M. J., van Duijn-Bakker, N., Baas-Thijssen, M. C., van der Weijden, T., Stiggelbout, A. M., & Pieterse, A. H. (2019). Shared decision making in oncology: A model based on Patients', health care Professionals', and Researchers' views. Psychooncology, 28(1), 139-146. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4923
  7. Bomhof-Roordink, H., Gärtner, F. R., Stiggelbout, A. M., & Pieterse, A. H. (2019). Key components of shared decision making models: A systematic review. BMJ Open, 9(12), e031763. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031763
  8. Bunnik, E. M., Kater-Kuipers, A., Galjaard, R. J. H., & de Beaufort, I. D. (2020). Should pregnant women be charged for non-invasive prenatal screening? Implications for reproductive autonomy and equal access. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(3), 194-198. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105675
  9. Cernat, A., De Freitas, C., Majid, U., Higgins, C., & Vanstone, M. (2019). Facilitating informed choice about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): A systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis of Women's experiences. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 19(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-2168-4
  10. Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997). Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science & Medicine, 44(5), 681-692. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3
  11. Childress, J. F. (2017). Needed: A more rigorous analysis of models of decision making and a richer account of respect for autonomy. The American Journal of Bioethics, 17(11), 52-54.
  12. Coulter, A. (1999). Shared decision-making: a summary and future issues. Oxford University Press.
  13. Department for Health and Wellbeing, Government of South Australia. (2022). South Australian perinatal practice guidelines: Antenatal care routine care in normal pregnancy.
  14. Dive, L. (2017). Autonomy, information, and paternalism in clinical communication. The American Journal of Bioethics, 17(11), 50-52.
  15. Dive, L., & Newson, A. J. (2018). Reconceptualizing autonomy for bioethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 28(2), 171-203.
  16. Dodds, S. (2000). Choice and control in feminist bioethics. In C. Mackenzie & N. Stoljar (Eds.), Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self. Oxford University Press.
  17. Elwyn, G., Gray, J., & Clarke, A. (2000). Shared decision making and non-directiveness in genetic counselling. Journal of Medical Genetics, 37(2), 135. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.37.2.135
  18. Farrell, R. M., Agatisa, P. K., Michie, M. M., Greene, A., & Ford, P. J. (2020). The personal utility of CfDNA screening: Pregnant patients' experiences with CfDNA screening and views on expanded CfDNA panels. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 29(1), 88-96.
  19. García, E., Timmermans, D. R., & van Leeuwen, E. (2008). Rethinking autonomy in the context of prenatal screening decision-making. Prenatal Diagnosis, 28, 115-120. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1920
  20. Gilbar, R., & Barnoy, S. (2018). Companions or patients? The impact of family presence in genetic consultations for inherited breast cancer: Relational autonomy in practice. Bioethics, 32(6), 378-387.
  21. Gómez-Vírseda, C., De Maeseneer, Y., & Gastmans, C. (2019). Relational autonomy: What does it mean and how is it used in end-of-life care? A systematic review of argument-based ethics literature. BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1), 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0417-3
  22. Grant, R., & Flint, K. (2007). Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy: A commentary by the Canadian down syndrome society. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 29(7), 580-582.
  23. Hertig, S. G., Cavalli, S., Burton-Jeangros, C., & Elger, B. S. (2014). ‘Doctor, what would you do in my position?’ Health professionals and the decision-making process in pregnancy monitoring. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40(5), 310-314.
  24. Hodgson, J., & Spriggs, M. (2005). A practical account of autonomy: Why genetic counseling is especially well suited to the facilitation of informed autonomous decision making. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 14(2), 89-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-005-4067-x
  25. Hoffmann, T. C., Legare, F., Simmons, M. B., McNamara, K., McCaffery, K., Trevena, L. J., Hudson, B., Glasziou, P. P., & Del Mar, C. B. (2014). Shared decision making: What do clinicians need to know and why should they bother? Medical Journal of Australia, 201(1), 35-39.
  26. Human Genetics Society of Australiasia. (2015). Process of Genetic Counselling. https://www.hgsa.org.au/documents/item/13 Retrieved April 23, 2022.
  27. Jamal, L., Schupmann, W., & Berkman, B. E. (2020). An ethical framework for genetic counseling in the genomic era. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 29(5), 718-727. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1207
  28. Joseph-Williams, N., Williams, D., Wood, F., Lloyd, A., Brain, K., Thomas, N., Prichard, A., Goodland, A., McGarrigle, H., Sweetland, H., & Edwards, A. (2019). A descriptive model of shared decision making derived from routine implementation in clinical practice (‘implement-SDM’): Qualitative study. Patient Education and Counseling, 102(10), 1774-1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.07.016
  29. Lewis, J. (2019). Does shared decision making respect a Patient's relational autonomy? Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 25(6), 1063-1069.
  30. Mackenzie, C., & Stoljar, N. (2000). Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self. Oxford University Press, Incorporated.
  31. Makoul, G., & Clayman, M. L. (2006). An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Education and Counseling, 60(3), 301-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.010
  32. Michie, S., Bron, F., Bobrow, M., & Marteau, T. M. (1997). Nondirectiveness in genetic counseling: An empirical study. American Journal of Human Genetics, 60(1), 40-47.
  33. Moumjid, N., Gafni, A., Alain, B Г.©m., & CarrГЁre, M.-O. (2007). Shared decision making in the medical encounter: Are we all talking about the same thing? Medical Decision Making, 27(5), 539-546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07306779
  34. Mozersky, J. (2015). Hoping someday never comes: Deferring ethical thinking about noninvasive prenatal testing. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 6(1), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2014.993097
  35. Müller-Engelmann, M., Donner-Banzhoff, N., Keller, H., Rosinger, L., Sauer, C., Rehfeldt, K., & Krones, T. (2013). When decisions should Be shared: A study of social norms in medical decision making using a factorial survey approach. Medical Decision Making, 33(1), 37-47.
  36. Ng, C. J., Lee, Y. K., Abdullah, A., Abu Bakar, A. I., Tun Firzara, A. M., & Tiew, H. W. (2019). Shared decision making: A dual-layer model to tackling multimorbidity in primary care. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 25(6), 1074-1079. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13163
  37. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2017). Non-invasive prenatal testing: Ethical Issues. Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
  38. Oduncu, F. S. (2002). The role of non-directiveness in genetic counseling. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 5(1), 53-63.
  39. Rantanen, E., Hietala, M., Kristoffersson, U., Nippert, I., Schmidtke, J., Sequeiros, J., & Kääriäinen, H. (2008). What is ideal genetic counselling? A survey of current international guidelines. European Journal of Human Genetics: EJHG, 16, 445-452. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201983
  40. Ravitsky, V. (2017). The shifting landscape of prenatal testing: Between reproductive autonomy and public health. Hastings Center Report, 47, S34-S40.
  41. Ravitsky, V., Roy, M.-C., Haidar, H., Henneman, L., Marshall, J., Newson, A. J., Ngan, O. M. Y., & Nov-Klaiman, T. (2021). The emergence and global spread of noninvasive prenatal testing. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 22(1), 309-338. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-083118-015053
  42. Rehmann-Sutter, C. (2009). Why non-directiveness is insufficient: Ethics of genetic decision making and a model of agency. Medicine Studies, 1(2), 113-129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12376-009-0023-7
  43. Rentmeester, C. A. (2001). Value neutrality in genetic counseling: An unattained ideal. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 4(1), 47-51. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009972728031
  44. Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy; Its current practice, implications, and theory. Houghton Mifflin.
  45. Rose, N. C., Kaimal, A. J., Dugoff, L., Norton, M. E., & American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins-ObstetricsCommittee on Genetics Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicin. (2020). Screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities: ACOG practice bulletin, number 226. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 136(4), e48-e69.
  46. Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. (2022). Genomics in General Practice. https://www.racgp.org.au/clinical-resources/clinical-guidelines/key-racgp-guidelines/view-all-racgp-guidelines/genomics/prenatal-testing Retrieved April 23, 2022.
  47. Skirton, H., Goldsmith, L., Jackson, L., Lewis, C., & Chitty, L. (2014). Offering prenatal diagnostic tests: European guidelines for clinical practice. European Journal of Human Genetics, 22(5), 580-586. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2013.205
  48. Ten Have, H. A., & Gordijn, B. (2001). Bioethics in a European perspective (1st ed.). Springer.
  49. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. (2018). Prenatal screening and diagnostic testing for fetal chromosomal and genetic conditions. https://ranzcog.edu.au/RANZCOG_SITE/media/RANZCOG-MEDIA/Women%27s%20Health/Statement%20and%20guidelines/Clinical-Obstetrics/Prenatal-screening_1.pdf?ext=.pdf Retrieved April 23, 2022.
  50. Towle, A., Godolphin, W., Greenhalgh, T., & Gambrill, J. (1999). Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making В commentary: Competencies for informed shared decision making В commentary: Proposals based on too many assumptions. BMJ, 319(7212), 766-771. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7212.766
  51. Ubel, P. A., Scherr, K. A., & Fagerlin, A. (2017). Empowerment failure: How shortcomings in physician communication unwittingly undermine patient autonomy. The American Journal of Bioethics, 17(11), 31-39.
  52. van de Pol, M. H., Fluit, C. R., Lagro, J., Slaats, Y. H., Rikkert, M. G. O., & Lagro-Janssen, A. L. (2015). Expert and patient consensus on a dynamic model for shared decision-making in frail older patients. Patient Education and Counseling, 99(6), 1069-1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.12.014
  53. van der Steen, S. L., Houtman, D., Bakkeren, I. M., Galjaard, R. J. H., Polak, M. G., Busschbach, J. J., Tibben, A., & Riedijk, S. R. (2019). Offering a choice between NIPT and invasive PND in prenatal genetic counseling: The impact of clinician characteristics on Patients' test uptake. European Journal of Human Genetics: EJHG, 27(2), 235-243. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-018-0287-z
  54. Weil, J., Ormond, K., Peters, J., Peters, K., Biesecker, B. B., & LeRoy, B. (2006). The relationship of nondirectiveness to genetic counseling: Report of a workshop at the 2003 NSGC annual education conference. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15(2), 85-93.
  55. Weil, J. (2003). Psychosocial genetic counseling in the post-nondirective era: A point of view. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 12(3), 199-211. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023234802124
  56. Welkenhuysen, M., Gerry, E. K., & d'Ydewalle, G. (2001). NSGC practice guideline: Prenatal screening and diagnostic testing options for chromosome aneuploidy. Patient Education and Counseling, 43, 179-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(00)00161-0
  57. Wilson, K. L., Czerwinski, J. L., Hoskovec, J. M., Noblin, S. J., Sullivan, C. M., Harbison, A., Campion, M. W., Devary, K., Devers, P., & Singletary, C. N. (2013). NSGC practice guideline: Prenatal screening and diagnostic testing options for chromosome aneuploidy. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9545-3
  58. Zimmermann, B. M., Koné, I., Shaw, D., & Elger, B. (2021). Autonomy and social influence in predictive genetic testing decision-making: A qualitative interview study. Bioethics, 35(2), 199-206.

MeSH Term

Pregnancy
Female
Humans
Genetic Counseling
Prenatal Diagnosis
Genetic Testing
Reproduction
Decision Making
Journal Article
Article has an altmetric score of 9

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0counselingprenatalreproductivemakingNIPTautonomygeneticdecisiontestingsupportcaremodelalternativeapproachscopepopularitynon-invasiveexpandeddebateemergedextenttestenhancesunderminesGeneticcrucialcontextcomplexvalue-ladendecisionsfollowinghigh-chanceresultsTwomodelspost-testproposedfirstnon-directivepredominantsharedderivingpatientchronicconditionspaperargueneitherapproachesadequateInsteadproposecalldeliberationsimultaneouslyrecognizesrelationalityencountersupportscapacitydecisionalresponsibilitypregnantpersonReproductivedeliberation:Supportingautonomousethics

Similar Articles

Cited By