Skip to main content
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
ZOEKEN
MENU 1 2 3 4
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander hoofdstuk

Gepubliceerd in:
Life course approach in women’s health hoofdstuk lezen eerste hoofdstuk lezen

2019 | OriginalPaper | Hoofdstuk

3. Reproductive medicine: ethical reflections

Auteurs : Guido M. W. R. de Wert, Dr Wybo J. Dondorp

Gepubliceerd in: Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Uitgeverij: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Summary

In this chapter we focus on the ethics of current developments in the context of human reproduction, ranging from preconception care to assisted reproduction, and from embryo selection to foetal therapy. What makes the ethical debate in this field so challenging is that many issues arise from the fact that the interests of several stakeholders beyond the patient may need to be taken into account. For instance: lifestyle choices in pregnancy are not just a matter of women’s autonomy, but also of parental responsibility. And in decision-making concerning genomic information the interests of family members may be at stake as well. Many of the issues that will be discussed in this chapter require further research of relevant empirical questions (preferences, impacts, etc.) as well as ethical analysis and societal debate. Although in some of these debates societal concerns about the ‘acceptability per se’ of a new development, such as germline genome editing (GLGE), may have to be addressed, ethical reflection and debate should not be regarded as limited to such questions. Beyond issues of acceptability, challenging ethical questions relate to the conditions under which a specific technology or intervention (such as preconception carrier screening) can responsibly be introduced and offered. In these debates, the input of all stakeholders (patients, professionals, society at large) is essential.
vorige hoofdstuk Life course approach in obstetrics and gynaecology for patient care, education and research
volgende hoofdstuk Anatomy of the pelvis, pelvic organs and reproductive system
Woordenlijst
Prevention view
The view that the aim of reproductive genetic counselling and reproductive genetic screening is to reduce the number of children born with genetic disorders
Autonomy view
The view that the aim of reproductive genetic counselling and reproductive genetic screening is to provide prospective parents, at higher risk, with opportunities for meaningful reproductive choice
Medicalization
The tendency that ever more aspects of life are brought under a ‘medical gaze’ and defined as requiring medical control and intervention – a tendency mostly considered to be problematic
Standard of ‘reasonable welfare’
This standard requires professionals to refrain from assisted reproduction in situations entailing a high risk of conceiving a child with a seriously diminished quality of life
Proportionality principle
This principle requires that for a practice to be justified, the possible benefits should clearly outweigh the possible drawbacks/risks
‘Enhancement’
Refers to the application of e.g. gene editing for non-medical reasons, especially for the improvement of normal human traits
Literatuur
1.
Health Council of the Netherlands. Preconception care: a good beginning. The Hague: Gezondheidsraad; 2007.
2.
3.
Wert G de, Wachter M de. Mag ik uw genenpaspoort? Ethische aspecten van dragerschapsonderzoek bij de voortplanting. Baarn: Ambo; 1990.
4.
Wert G de. Met het oog op de toekomst. Voortplantingstechnologie, erfelijkheidsonderzoek en ethiek. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis; 1999.
5.
6.
Faden R, Beauchamp T. A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.
7.
Offit K, Groeger E, Turner S, Wadsworth EA, Weiser MA. The ‘duty to warn’ a patient’s family members about hereditary disease risks. JAMA 2004;292(12):1469–73. PubMedCrossRef
8.
9.
Knoppers BM. Genetic information and the family: are we our brother’s keeper? Trends Biotechnol. 2002;20(2):85–6. PubMedCrossRef
10.
Leenen HJJ, Dute JCJ, Gevers JKM, Legemaate J, Groot GRJ de, Gelpke ME, et al. Handboek Gezondheidsrecht. ‘s-Gravenhage: Boom Juridische Uitgevers; 2014.
11.
Boonekamp J, Berghmans R, Dondorp W, Wert G de. Zorg voor verslaafde zwangere vrouwen: rechtvaardiging van drang en dwang. Tijds Psychiatr. 2012;54(3):257–66.
12.
Gaskins AJ, Chavarro JE. Diet and fertility: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017.
13.
Riessman CK. Women and medicalization: a new perspective. Soc Policy. 1983;14(1):3–18. PubMed
14.
Verweij M. Medicalization as a moral problem for preventative medicine. Bioethics 1999;13(2):89–113. PubMedCrossRef
15.
Thompson EL, Vazquez-Otero C, Vamos CA, Marhefka SL, Kline NS, Daley EM. Rethinking preconception care: a critical, women’s health perspective. Matern Child Health J. 2017;21(5):1147–55. PubMedCrossRef
16.
d’Arcy E. Human acts: an essay in their moral evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1963.
17.
Wert G de. ‘Medicalisering’ van de voortplanting: een ethische verkenning van prenatale screening. TGE. 2013;23(3):78–83.
18.
Posner SF, Johnson K, Parker C, Atrash H, Biermann J. The national summit on preconception care: a summary of concepts and recommendations. Matern Child Health J. 2006;10(5 Suppl):S197–205. PubMed
19.
Vos AA, Voorst SF van, Steegers EA, Denktas S. Analysis of policy towards improvement of perinatal mortality in the Netherlands (2004–2011). Soc Sci Med. 2016;157:156–64. CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
Henneman L, Borry P, Chokoshvili D, Cornel MC, El CG van, Forzano F, et al. Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24(6):e1–12. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Hout S van der, Holtkamp KC, Henneman L, Wert G de, Dondorp WJ. Advantages of expanded universal carrier screening: what is at stake? Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;25(1):17–21. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
Saffi M, Howard N. Exploring the effectiveness of mandatory premarital screening and genetic counselling programmes for beta-thalassaemia in the middle east: a scoping review. Public Health Genomics. 2015;18(4):193–203. PubMedCrossRef
24.
Paul D. Controlling human heredity. 1865 to the Present. New Jersey: Humanities press; 1995.
25.
Parens E, Asch A. The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing. Reflections and Recommendations. Hastings Cent Rep. 1999;29(5):S1–22. PubMedCrossRef
26.
Wert GM de, Dondorp WJ, Knoppers BM. Preconception care and genetic risk: ethical issues. J Community Genet. 2012;3(3):221–8. PubMedCrossRef
27.
Dondorp WJ, Wert GM de. Fertility preservation for healthy women: ethical aspects. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(8):1779–85. PubMedCrossRef
28.
Massarotti C, Scaruffi P, Lambertini M, Remorgida V, Mastro L del, Anserini P. State of the art on oocyte cryopreservation in female cancer patients: a critical review of the literature. Cancer Treat Rev. 2017;57:50–7. PubMedCrossRef
29.
Wallace WH, Kelsey TW, Anderson RA. Fertility preservation in pre-pubertal girls with cancer: the role of ovarian tissue cryopreservation. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(1):6–12. PubMedCrossRef
30.
Dondorp W, Wert G de, Pennings G, Shenfield F, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B, et al. ESHRE task force on ethics & law #18. Oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility loss. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(5):1231–7. PubMedCrossRef
31.
Hendriks S, Dancet EA, Pelt AM van, Hamer G, Repping S. Artificial gametes: a systematic review of biological progress towards clinical application. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(3):285–96. PubMedCrossRef
32.
Mertes H, Pennings G, Dondorp W, Wert G de. Implications of oocyte cryostorage for the practice of oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(10):2886–93. PubMedCrossRef
33.
34.
Dutney A. Religion, infertility and assisted reproductive technology. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;21(1):169–80. PubMedCrossRef
35.
Jones DA. Soul of the embryo: an enquiry into the status of the human embryo in the christian tradition. London: Continuum; 2004.
36.
Health Council of the Netherlands. IVF-related research. The Hague: Gezondheidsraad; 1998.
37.
Mertes H, Pennings G. Ethical concerns eliminated: safer stimulation protocols and egg banking. Am J Bioeth. 2011;11(9):33–5. PubMedCrossRef
38.
Callahan JC, Roberts DE. A feminist social justice approach to reproduction-assisting technologies: a case study on the limits of liberal theory. KY Law J. 1996;84(4):1197–234. PubMed
39.
Kirejczyk M, Berkel D van, Swierstra T. Nieuwe voortplanting: afscheid van de ooievaar. Sociaal-historische en normatief politieke aspecten van de ontwikkeling van voortplantingstechnologie in Nederland. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut; 2001.
40.
Warren MA. IVF and women’s interests: an analysis of feminist concerns. Bioethics 1988;2(1):37–57. PubMedCrossRef
41.
Bensdorp AJ, Steeg JW van der, Steures P, Habbema JDF, Hompes PGA, Bossuyt PMM, et al. A revised prediction model for natural conception. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;34(6):619–26. PubMedCrossRef
42.
Boogaard NM van den, Musters AM, Bruhl SW, Tankens T, Kremer JA, Mol BW, et al. Tailored expectant management: a nationwide survey to quantify patients’ and professionals’ barriers and facilitators. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(4):1050–7. PubMedCrossRef
43.
44.
Pennings G, Wert G de, Shenfield F, Cohen J, Tarlatzis B, Devroey P. ESHRE task force on ethics and law 13: the welfare of the child in medically assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(10):2585–8. PubMedCrossRef
45.
Ethics Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Child-rearing ability and the provision of fertility services: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(1):50–3. CrossRef
46.
Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie en Gynaecologie (NVOG). Modelprotocol mogelijke morele contra-indicaties bij vruchtbaarheidsbehandelingen. 2010.
47.
Pennings G. Measuring the welfare of the child: in search of the appropriate evaluation principle. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(5):1146–50. PubMedCrossRef
48.
Wert G de. The post-menopause: playground for reproductive technology? Some ethical reflections. In: Harris J, Holm S, editors. The future of human reproduction Ethics, choice, and regulation. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1998. p. 221–37.
49.
Steinbock B. Life before birth. The moral and legal status of embryos and fetuses. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
50.
Arras JD. AIDS and reproductive decisions: having children in fear and trembling. Milbank Q. 1990;68(3):353–82. PubMedCrossRef
51.
Health Council of the Netherlands. Het planningsbesluit IVF. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad; 1997.
52.
Dondorp W, Wert G de, Pennings G, Shenfield F, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B, et al. ESHRE task force on ethics & law #17. Lifestyle-related factors and access to medically assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(3):578–83. PubMedCrossRef
53.
Sazonova A, Kallen K, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Wennerholm UB, Bergh C. Neonatal and maternal outcomes comparing women undergoing two in vitro fertilization (IVF) singleton pregnancies and women undergoing one IVF twin pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(3):731–7. PubMedCrossRef
54.
Wert G de, Dondorp W, Shenfield F, Barri P, Devroey P, Diedrich K, et al. ESHRE task force on ethics and law 23: medically assisted reproduction in singles, lesbian and gay couples, and transsexual people. Hum Reprod. 2014a;29(9):1859–65. PubMedCrossRef
55.
Kortman M, Wert GM de, Fauser BC, Macklon NS. Zwangerschap op oudere leeftijd door middel van eiceldonatie. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2006;150(47):2591–5. PubMed
56.
Shenfield F, Mouzon J de, Pennings G, Ferraretti AP, Andersen AN, Wert G de, et al. Cross border reproductive care in six European countries. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(6):1361–8. PubMedCrossRef
57.
Lange N de, Evers JLH. Medisch toerisme bij subfertiliteit. Medisch Contact. 2010;65(39):2000–3.
58.
Pennings G. Legal harmonization and reproductive tourism in Europe. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(12):2689–94. PubMedCrossRef
59.
Pennings G, Wert G de, Shenfield F, Cohen J, Tarlatzis B, Devroey P. ESHRE task force on ethics and law 15: cross-border reproductive care. Hum Reprod. 2008a;23(10):2182–4. PubMedCrossRef
60.
Shenfield F, Pennings G, Mouzon J de, Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, Care ETFCBR. ESHRE’s good practice guide for cross-border reproductive care for centers and practitioners. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1625–7. PubMedCrossRef
61.
Pennings G, Wert G de, Shenfield F, Cohen J, Tarlatzis B, Devroey P. ESHRE task force on ethics and law 14: equity of access to assisted reproductive technology. Hum Reprod. 2008b;23(4):772–4. PubMedCrossRef
62.
Richards M, Pennings G, Appleby J. Reproductive donation. Practice, Policy and Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
63.
Devroey P, Polyzos NP, Blockeel C. An OHSS-Free Clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(10):2593–7. PubMedCrossRef
64.
Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie en Gynaecologie (NVOG). STANDPUNT ‘Geassisteerde voortplanting met gedoneerde gameten en gedoneerde embryo’s en draagmoederschap’. Utrecht: NVOG; 2016.
65.
Olsthoorn-Heim ETM, Wert GMWR de, Winter HB, Braake TAM te, Heineman MJ, Middelkamp A, et al. Evaluatie Embryowet. Den Haag: ZonMw; 2006.
66.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCoB). Human bodies. Donation for medicine or research. London: NCoB; 2010.
67.
Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority (HFEA). Latest donation figures: Egg and sperm donation in the UK 2012–2013. 2013.
68.
Bos AM, Klapwijk P, Fauser BC. Brede steun voor eicelbank in Nederland. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2012;156(5):A4145. PubMed
69.
Pennings G, Vayena E, Ahuja K. Balancing ethical criteria for the recruiment of gamete donors. In: Richards M, Pennings G, Appleby J, editors. Reproductive donation practice, policy and bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012. p. 150–67. CrossRef
70.
Thum MY, Gafar A, Wren M, Faris R, Ogunyemi B, Korea L, et al. Does egg sharing compromise the chance of donors or recipients achieving a live birth? Hum Reprod. 2003;18(11):2363–7. PubMedCrossRef
71.
Bracewell-Milnes T, Saso S, Abdalla H, Thum MY. A systematic review investigating psychosocial aspects of egg sharing in the United Kingdom and their potential effects on egg donation numbers. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2017:1–11.
72.
Soderstrom-Anttila V, Wennerholm UB, Loft A, Pinborg A, Aittomaki K, Romundstad LB, et al. Surrogacy: outcomes for surrogate mothers, children and the resulting families-a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22(2):260–76. PubMed
73.
74.
Wert G de, Dondorp W, Pennings G, Shenfield F, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B, et al. ESHRE task force on ethics and law #19. Intrafamilial medically assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(3):504–9. PubMedCrossRef
75.
Burr J, Reynolds P. Thinking ethically about genetic inheritance: liberal rights, communitarianism and the right to privacy for parents of donor insemination children. J Med Ethics. 2008;34(4):281–4. PubMedCrossRef
76.
Pennings G. How to kill gamete donation: retrospective legislation and donor anonymity. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(10):2881–5. PubMedCrossRef
77.
Turkmendag I. The donor-conceived child’s ‘Right to Personal Identity’: the public debate on donor anonymity in the United Kingdom. J Law Soc. 2012;39(1):58–72. PubMedCrossRef
78.
Pennings G. Disclosure of donor conception, age of disclosure and the well-being of donor offspring. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(5):969–73. PubMedCrossRef
79.
Winter HB, Dondorp WJ, Ploem MC, Woestenburg NOM, Legemaate J, Wert GMWR de. Evaluatie embryowet en wet donorgegevens kunstmatige bevruchting. Den Haag: ZonMw; 2012.
80.
Borry P, Rusu O, Dondorp W, Wert G de, Knoppers BM, Howard HC. Anonymity 2.0: direct-to-consumer genetic testing and donor conception. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):630–2. PubMedCrossRef
81.
Harper JC, Kennett D, Reisel D. The end of donor anonymity: how genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous gamete donation out of business. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(6):1135–40. PubMedCrossRef
82.
Lampic C, Skoog Svanberg A, Sydsjo G. Attitudes towards disclosure and relationship to donor offspring among a national cohort of identity-release oocyte and sperm donors. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1978–86. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
83.
Dondorp W, Wert G de, Pennings G, Shenfield F, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B, et al. ESHRE task force on ethics and law 21: genetic screening of gamete donors: ethical issues. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(7):1353–9. PubMedCrossRef
84.
Martin J, Asan Yi Y, Alberola T, Rodriguez-Iglesias B, Jimenez-Almazan J, et al. Comprehensive carrier genetic test using next-generation deoxyribonucleic acid sequencing in infertile couples wishing to conceive through assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(5):1286–93. PubMedCrossRef
85.
Wert G de. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: normative reflections. In: Harper J, editor. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. 2nd ed. Cambridge: CUP; 2009, pp. 259–273.
86.
Vermeesch JR, Voet T, Devriendt K. Prenatal and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Nat Rev Genet. 2016;17(10):643–56. PubMedCrossRef
87.
Knoppers BM, Bordet S, Isasi RM. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: an overview of socio-ethical and legal considerations. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2006;7:201–21. PubMedCrossRef
88.
89.
Wertz DC, Knoppers BM. Serious genetic disorders: can or should they be defined? Am J Med Genet. 2002;108(1):29–35. PubMedCrossRef
90.
Die-Smulders CE de, Wert GM de, Liebaers I, Tibben A, Evers-Kiebooms G. Reproductive options for prospective parents in families with Huntington’s disease: clinical, psychological and ethical reflections. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(3):304–15. PubMedCrossRef
91.
Wert G de, Dondorp W, Shenfield F, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B, Barri P, et al. ESHRE task force on ethics and Law22: preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod. 2014b;29(8):1610–7. PubMedCrossRef
92.
Wert G de. Preimplantation genetic testing: the ethics of intermediate cases. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(12):3261–6. PubMedCrossRef
93.
94.
Hvistendahl M. Unnatural selection. Choosing boys over girls, and the consequences of a world full of men. New York: Public Affairs; 2011.
95.
Pennings G. Family balancing as a morally acceptable application of sex selection. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(11):2339–43. PubMedCrossRef
96.
Dondorp W, Wert G de, Pennings G, Shenfield F, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B, et al. ESHRE task force on ethics and law 20: sex selection for non-medical reasons. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(6):1448–54. PubMedCrossRef
97.
Davis DS. Genetic dilemmas: reproductive technology, parental choices, and children’s futures. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
98.
Thornhill AR, Die-Smulders CE de, Geraedts JP, Harper JC, Harton GL, Lavery SA, et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium ‘best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)’. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(1):35–48. PubMedCrossRef
99.
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address Aao, ethics committee of the American society for reproductive medicine. Transferring embryos with genetic anomalies detected in preimplantation testing: an ethics committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(5):1130–5. CrossRef
100.
101.
Dimitriadou E, Melotte C, Debrock S, Esteki MZ, Dierickx K, Voet T, et al. Principles guiding embryo selection following genome-wide haplotyping of preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(3):687–97. PubMedCrossRef
102.
Sermon K, Capalbo A, Cohen J, Coonen E, Rycke M de, Vos A de, et al. The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016;22(8):845–57. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
103.
Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1846–50. PubMedCrossRef
104.
Mertes H, Repping S, Wert G de. Stating the obvious: discarding embryos does not increase your chance of having a baby. Bionews 2016 january 18.
105.
Winand R, Hens K, Dondorp W, Wert G de, Moreau Y, Vermeesch JR, et al. In vitro screening of embryos by whole-genome sequencing: now, in the future or never? Hum Reprod. 2014;29(4):842–51. PubMedCrossRef
106.
Hens K, Dondorp W, Handyside AH, Harper J, Newson AJ, Pennings G, et al. Dynamics and ethics of comprehensive preimplantation genetic testing: a review of the challenges. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(4):366–75. PubMedCrossRef
107.
108.
Thornhill AR, Handyside AH, Ottolini C, Natesan SA, Taylor J, Sage K, et al. Karyomapping-a comprehensive means of simultaneous monogenic and cytogenetic PGD: comparison with standard approaches in real time for Marfan syndrome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(3):347–56. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
109.
Zamani Esteki M, Dimitriadou E, Mateiu L, Melotte C, Aa N van der, Kumar P, et al. Concurrent whole-genome haplotyping and copy-number profiling of single cells. Am J Hum Genet. 2015;96(6):894–912. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
110.
Liang P, Xu Y, Zhang X, Ding C, Huang R, Zhang Z, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell. 2015;6(5):363–72. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
111.
Wert G de, Pennings G, Clarke A, Eichenlaub-Ritter U, El CG van, Forzano F, et al. Human germline gene editing. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Eur J Hum Genet. 2018;26(4):445–449. PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
112.
Mertes H, Pennings G. Modification of the Embryo’s genome: more useful in research than in the clinic. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(12):52–3. PubMedCrossRef
113.
Boonin D. A defense of abortion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
114.
MacLeod R, Tibben A, Frontali M, Evers-Kiebooms G, Jones A, Martinez-Descales A, et al. Recommendations for the predictive genetic test in Huntington’s disease. Clin Genet. 2013;83(3):221–31. PubMedCrossRef
115.
Lorenz JM, Hardart GE. Evolving medical and surgical management of infants with trisomy 18. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2014;26(2):169–76. PubMedCrossRef
116.
Carey JC. Perspectives on the care and management of infants with trisomy 18 and trisomy 13: striving for balance. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2012;24(6):672–8. PubMedCrossRef
117.
Koogler TK, Wilfond BS, Ross LF. Lethal language, lethal decisions. Hastings Cent Rep. 2003;33(2):37–41. PubMedCrossRef
118.
Jorgensen JM, Hedley PL, Gjerris M, Christiansen M. Including ethical considerations in models for first-trimester screening for pre-eclampsia. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014a;28(5):638–43. PubMedCrossRef
119.
Health Council of the Netherlands. NIPT: dynamiek en ethiek van prenatale screening. The Hague: Gezondheidsraad; 2013.
120.
Stein Z, Susser M, Guterman AV. Screening programme for prevention of Down’s syndrome. Lancet. 1973;1(7798):305–10. PubMedCrossRef
121.
Solomon A. Far from the tree. Parents, children and the search for identity. New York: Scribner; 2012.
122.
Wright D. Downs: The history of a disability. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
123.
Jong A de, Wert GM de. Prenatal screening: an ethical agenda for the near future. Bioethics 2015;29(1):46–55. PubMedCrossRef
124.
Dondorp W, Wert G de, Bombard Y, Bianchi DW, Bergmann C, Borry P, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23(11):1438–50. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
125.
Clarke AJ. Prenatal screening. Paradigms and perspectives. In: Harper DS, Clarke AJ, editors. Genetics, society and clinical practice. Oxford: Bios Scientific Publishers; 1997. pp. 119–40.
126.
Health Council of the Netherlands. Prenatal screening: Down’s syndrome, neural tube defects, routne-ultrasonography. The Hague; 2001.
127.
Dondorp W, Lith J van. Dynamics of prenatal screening: new developments challenging the ethical framework. Bioethics 2015;29(1):ii-iv. CrossRef
128.
129.
Stapleton G. Qualifying choice: ethical reflection on the scope of prenatal screening. Med Healthcare Philos. 2017;20(2):195–205. CrossRef
130.
Benn P. Expanding non-invasive prenatal testing beyond chromosomes 21, 18, 13, X and Y. Clin Genet. 2016;90(6):477–85. PubMedCrossRef
131.
Chen SC, Wasserman DT. A framework for unrestricted prenatal whole-genome sequencing: respecting and enhancing the autonomy of prospective parents. Am J Bioeth. 2017;17(1):3–18. PubMedCrossRef
132.
133.
Conley WK, McAdams DC, Donovan GK, FitzGerald KT. Beneficence in utero: a framework for restricted prenatal whole-genome sequencing to respect and enhance the well-being of children. Am J Bioethics 2017;17(1):28–9. CrossRef
134.
Jorgensen JM, Hedley PL, Gjerris M, Christiansen M. Ethical issues related to screening for preeclampsia. Bioethics 2014b;28(7):360–7. PubMedCrossRef
135.
Dondorp W, Wert G de. The ‘Normalization’ of prenatal screening: prevention as prenatal beneficence. In: Schmitz D, Clarke A, Dondorp W, editors. The fetus as a patient a contested concept and its normative implications. Abingdon, UK: Routledge (Taylor & Francis); 2018, pp. 44–153. CrossRef
136.
Dondorp W, Wert G de. Ethical issues in maternal-fetal medicine. In: Rodeck CH, Whittle MJ, editors. Fetal medicine: basic science and clinical practice. London: Elsevier; 2018 in press.
137.
Murray TH. Moral obligations to the not-yet born: the fetus as patient. Clin Perinatol. 1987;14(2):329–43. PubMedCrossRef
138.
Guedj F, Bianchi DW. Noninvasive prenatal testing creates an opportunity for antenatal treatment of Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(6):614–8. PubMedCrossRef
139.
Guedj F, Bianchi DW, Delabar JM. Prenatal treatment of Down syndrome: a reality? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;26(2):92–103. PubMedCrossRef
140.
Wert G de, Dondorp W, Bianchi DW. Fetal therapy for Down syndrome: an ethical exploration. Prenat Diagn. 2017;37(3):222–8. PubMedCrossRef
141.
Shakespeare T. Disability rights and wrongs revisited. 2nd ed. London & New York: Routledge; 2014.
142.
143.
Neri G, Opitz JM. Down syndrome: comments and reflections on the 50th anniversary of Lejeune’s discovery. Am J Med Genet A. 2009;149A(12):2647–54. PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Reproductive medicine: ethical reflections
Auteurs
Guido M. W. R. de Wert
Dr Wybo J. Dondorp
Copyright
2019
Uitgeverij
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Boek
Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Print ISBN: 978-90-368-2130-8

Elektronisch ISBN: 978-90-368-2131-5

Copyright: 2019

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-368-2131-5_3