Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen
Top
Gepubliceerd in:
hoofdstuk lezen eerste hoofdstuk lezen

2024 | OriginalPaper | Hoofdstuk

4. Reproductive medicine: ethical reflections

Auteurs : Prof.dr. Guido de Wert, Dr. Seppe Segers, Dr. Sanne van der Hout, Prof. dr. Wybo 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

This chapter focuses on the ethics of current developments in the context of human reproduction, ranging from preconception care to assisted reproduction to embryo selection to foetal therapy. What makes ethical debate in this field so challenging is that many issues arise from several stakeholders’ interests that extend beyond the patient need to be considered. For instance: lifestyle choices in pregnancy are not just a matter of women’s autonomy, but also of parental responsibility. In decision-making concerning genomic information, the interests of family members may be implicated as well. Many of the issues discussed in this chapter require further research into relevant empirical questions (e.g. preferences and impacts), 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 may have to be addressed, such as in germline genome editing (GGE), 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
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.
Enhancement
Refers to the application of gene editing for non-medical reasons, especially for the improvement of normal human traits.
Medicalisation
The tendency that more aspects of life are being brought under a ‘medical gaze’ and defined as requiring medical control and intervention – a tendency mostly considered problematic.
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.
Proportionality principle
This principle requires that for a practice to be justified, the possible benefits should clearly outweigh the possible drawbacks or risks.
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.
Literatuur
1.
Health Council of the Netherlands. Preconception care: a good beginning. The Hague: Gezondheidsraad; 2007.
2.
3.
De Wert G, De Wachter M. Mag ik uw genenpaspoort? Ethische aspecten van dragerschapsonderzoek bij de voortplanting. Baarn: Ambo; 1990.
4.
De Wert G. 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.
Wertz DC, Knoppers BM. Serious genetic disorders: can or should they be defined? Am J Med Genet. 2002;108(1):29–35.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Boonekamp J, Berghmans R, Dondorp W, De Wert G. Zorg voor verslaafde zwangere vrouwen: rechtvaardiging van drang en dwang. Tijds Psychiatr. 2012;54(3):257–66.
12.
Den Hartogh G. Prenatale en postmortale schade. Temporele grenzen van rechtssubjectiviteit. Nederlands Juristenblad. 2010;645:778–83.
13.
Dondorp WJ, De Wert GMWR. De foetus of het toekomstige kind? De rechtvaardiging van prenatale kinderbescherming vraagt om conceptuele helderheid. Tijds Gezondheidsr. 2022;46(2):114–28.CrossRef
14.
Gaskins AJ, Chavarro JE. Diet and fertility: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017.
15.
Riessman CK. Women and medicalization: a new perspective. Soc Policy. 1983;14(1):3–18.PubMed
16.
Verweij M. Medicalization as a moral problem for preventative medicine. Bioethics. 1999;13(2):89–113.PubMedCrossRef
17.
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
18.
d’Arcy E. Human Acts: An Essay in their Moral Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1963.
19.
De Wert G. ‘Medicalisering’ van de voortplanting: een ethische verkenning van prenatale screening. TGE. 2013;23(3):78–83.
20.
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
21.
Vos AA, Van Voorst SF, Steegers EA, Denktas S. Analysis of policy towards improvement of perinatal mortality in the Netherlands (2004–2011). Soc Sci Med. 2016;157:156–64.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Fridman H, Yntema HG, Magi R, Andreson R, Metspalu A, Mezzavila M, et al. The landscape of autosomal-recessive pathogenic variants in European populations reveals phenotype-specific effects. Am J Hum Genet. 2021;108(4):608–19.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
Henneman L, Borry P, Chokoshvili D, Cornel MC, Van El CG, Forzano F, et al. Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24(6):e1–12.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Van der Hout S, Holtkamp KC, Henneman L, De Wert G, Dondorp WJ. Advantages of expanded universal carrier screening: what is at stake? Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;25(1):17–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
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
26.
Paul D. Controlling human heredity. 1865 to the Present. New Jersey: Humanities press; 1995.
27.
Parens E, Asch A. The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing. Reflections and Recommendations. Hastings Cent Rep. 1999;29(5):S1–22.
28.
De Wert GM, Dondorp WJ, Knoppers BM. Preconception care and genetic risk: ethical issues. J Community Genet. 2012;3(3):221–8.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Dondorp WJ, De Wert GM. Fertility preservation for healthy women: ethical aspects. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(8):1779–85.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Anderson RA, Amant F, Braat D, D’Angelo A, Chuva de Sousa Lopes SM, Demeestere I, et al. ESHRE guideline: female fertility preservation. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020(4):hoaa052.
31.
Massarotti C, Scaruffi P, Lambertini M, Remorgida V, Del Mastro L, 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
32.
Dolmans MM, Von Wolff M, Poirot C, Diaz-Garcia C, Cacciottola L, Boissel N, et al. Transplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue in a series of 285 women: a review of five leading European centers. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(5):1102–15.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Eijkenboom L, Saedt E, Zietse C, Braat D, Beerendonk C, Peek R. Strategies to safely use cryopreserved ovarian tissue to restore fertility after cancer: a systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;45(4):763–78.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Mertes H, Pennings G. Ethical considerations of fertility preservation. In: Gruynberg M, Patrizio P, editors. Female and male fertility preservation: Springer; 2022. pp. 627–40.
35.
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
36.
Dondorp W, De Wert G, 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.
37.
Hendriks S, Dancet EA, Van Pelt AM, Hamer G, Repping S. Artificial gametes: a systematic review of biological progress towards clinical application. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(3):285–96.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Mertes H, Pennings G, Dondorp W, De Wert G. Implications of oocyte cryostorage for the practice of oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(10):2886–93.PubMedCrossRef
39.
40.
Dutney A. Religion, infertility and assisted reproductive technology. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;21(1):169–80.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Dondorp WJ, De wert GMWR. The Role of Religion in the Political Debate on Embryo Research in the Netherlands. In: Weiberg-Salzmann M, Willems U, editors. Religion and Biopolitics: Springer; 2019. pp. 257–79.
42.
Jones DA. Soul of the Embryo: An Enquiry into the Status of the Human Embryo in the Christian Tradition. London: Continuum; 2004.
43.
Health Council of the Netherlands. IVF-related research. The Hague: Gezondheidsraad; 1998.
44.
Mertes H, Pennings G. Ethical concerns eliminated: safer stimulation protocols and egg banking. Am J Bioeth. 2011;11(9):33–5.PubMedCrossRef
45.
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
46.
Kirejczyk M, Van Berkel D, 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.
47.
Warren MA. IVF and women’s interests: an analysis of feminist concerns. Bioethics. 1988;2(1):37–57.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Bensdorp AJ, Van der Steeg JW, 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
49.
Van den Boogaard NM, 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
50.
Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority (HFEA). Code of practice 9. Guidance note 8 (Version 2.0) Welfare of the Child. London: HFEA; 2021.
51.
Pennings G, De Wert G, 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
52.
Ethics Committee of American Society for Reproductive M. Child-rearing ability and the provision of fertility services: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(1):50–3.
53.
Pennings G. Measuring the welfare of the child: in search of the appropriate evaluation principle. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(5):1146–50.PubMedCrossRef
54.
De Wert G. 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.CrossRef
55.
Steinbock B. Life before birth. The moral and legal status of embryos and fetuses. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
56.
Arras JD. HIV and childbearing. 2. AIDS and reproductive decisions: having children in fear and trembling. Milbank Q. 1990;68(3):353–82.
57.
Health Council of the Netherlands. Het planningsbesluit IVF. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad; 1997.
58.
Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie en Gynaecologie (NVOG). Modelprotocol mogelijke morele contra-indicaties bij vruchtbaarheidsbehandelingen. 2010.
59.
Dondorp W, De Wert G, 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.
60.
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
61.
Johnson MH, Franklin SB, Cottingham M, Hopwood N. Why the Medical Research Council refused Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe support for research on human conception in 1971. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(9):2157–74.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
62.
Dondorp W, De Wert G. Innovative reproductive technologies: risks and responsibilities. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1604–8.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Jans V, Dondorp W, Mastenbroek S, Mertes H, Pennings G, Smeets H, et al. Between innovation and precaution: how did offspring safety considerations play a role in strategies of introducing new reproductive techniques? Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020(2):hoaa003.
64.
Harper J, Magli MC, Lundin K, Barratt CLR, Brison D. When and how should new technology be introduced into the IVF laboratory? Human Reproduction. 2012;27(2):303–13.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Provoost V, Tilleman K, D’Angelo A, De Sutter P, De Wert G, Nelen W, et al. Beyond the dichotomy: a tool for distinguishing between experimental, innovative and established treatment. Human Reproduction. 2014;29(3):413–7.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Dondorp WJ, Ploem MC, De Wert GMWR, De Vries MC, Gevers JKM. Derde Evaluatie Embryowet. Den Haag: ZonMw; 2021.
67.
Jans V, Dondorp W, Goossens E, Mertes H, Pennings G, Smeets H, et al. Of mice and human embryos: is there an ethically preferred order of preclinical research on new assisted reproductive technologies? Human Reproduction. 2018;33(9):1581–5.PubMedCrossRef
68.
De Wert G, Pennings G, Clarke A, Eichenlaub-Ritter U, Van El CG, Forzano F, et al. Human germline gene editing. Recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE. Eur J Hum Genet 2018;26(4):445–449.
69.
Harper JC, Aittomaki K, Borry P, Cornel MC, De Wert G, Dondorp W, et al. Recent developments in genetics and medically assisted reproduction: from research to clinical applications. European Journal of Human Genetics. 2018;26(1):12–33.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Segers S, Mertes H, De Wert G, Dondorp W, Pennings G. Balancing Ethical Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Derived Gametes. Ann Biomed Eng. 2017;45(7):1620–32.PubMedCrossRef
71.
De Wert G, 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 peopledagger. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1859–65.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Kortman M, De Wert GM, Fauser BC, Macklon NS. Zwangerschap op oudere leeftijd door middel van eiceldonatie. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2006;150(47):2591–5.PubMed
73.
De Lange N, Evers JLH. Medisch toerisme bij subfertiliteit. Medisch Contact. 2010;65(39):2000–3.
74.
Pennings G. Legal harmonization and reproductive tourism in Europe. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(12):2689–94.PubMedCrossRef
75.
Pennings G, De Wert G, Shenfield F, Cohen J, Tarlatzis B, Devroey P. ESHRE task force on ethics and law 15: cross-border reproductive care. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(10):2182–4.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Shenfield F, Pennings G, De Mouzon J, 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.
77.
Pennings G, De Wert G, 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. 2008;23(4):772–4.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Segers S, Pennings G, Mertes H. Getting what you desire: the normative significance of genetic relatedness in parent-child relationships. Med Health Care Phil. 2019;22(3):487–95.CrossRef
79.
Richards M, Pennings G, Appleby J. Reproductive donation. Practice, Policy and Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
80.
Devroey P, Polyzos NP, Blockeel C. An OHSS-Free Clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(10):2593–7.PubMedCrossRef
81.
Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie en Gynaecologie (NVOG). STANDPUNT ‘Geassisteerde voortplanting met gedoneerde gameten en gedoneerde embryo’s en draagmoederschap’. Utrecht: NVOG; 2016.
82.
Olsthoorn-Heim ETM, De Wert GMWR, Winter HB, Te Braake TAM, Heineman MJ, Middelkamp A, et al. Evaluatie Embryowet. Den Haag: ZonMw; 2006.
83.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCoB). Human bodies. Donation for medicine or research. London: NCoB; 2010.
84.
Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority (HFEA). Latest donation figures: Egg and sperm donation in the UK 2012–2013. 2013.
85.
Bos AM, Klapwijk P, Fauser BC. Brede steun voor eicelbank in Nederland. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2012;156(5):A4145.PubMed
86.
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
87.
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
88.
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.
89.
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
90.
91.
De Wert G, 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.PubMed
92.
Ravitsky V. Autonomous choice and the right to know one’s genetic origins. Hastings Cent Rep. 2014;44(2):36–7.PubMedCrossRef
93.
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
94.
Draper H. Why there is no right to know one’s genetic origin. In: Athanassoulis N, editor. Philosophical reflections on medical ethics. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan; 2005. p. 70–87.CrossRef
95.
De Melo-Martin I. The ethics of anonymous gamete donation: is there a right to know one’s genetic origins? Hastings Cent Rep. 2014;44(2):28–35.PubMedCrossRef
96.
Pennings G. How to kill gamete donation: retrospective legislation and donor anonymity. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(10):2881–5.PubMedCrossRef
97.
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
98.
Pennings G. Disclosure of donor conception, age of disclosure and the well-being of donor offspring. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(5):969–73.PubMedCrossRef
99.
Turner AJ, Coyle A. What does it mean to be a donor offspring? The identity experiences of adults conceived by donor insemination and the implications for counselling and therapy. Human Reproduction. 2000;15(9):2041–51.PubMedCrossRef
100.
Blyth E. Discovering the ‘Facts of Life’ Following Anonymous Donor Insemination. Int J Law Policy Fam. 2012;26(2):143–61.CrossRef
101.
Leighton K. Addressing The Harms of Not Knowing One’s Heredity: Lessons From Genealogical Bewilderment. Adoption & Culture. 2012;3:63–107.CrossRef
102.
De Melo-Martin I, Rubin LR, Cholst IN. “I want us to be a normal family”: Toward an understanding of the functions of anonymity among U.S. oocyte donors and recipients. AJOB empirical. 2018;9(4):235–51.
103.
Borry P, Rusu O, Dondorp W, De Wert G, Knoppers BM, Howard HC. Anonymity 2.0: direct-to-consumer genetic testing and donor conception. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):630–2.
104.
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
105.
Pennings G. Genetic databases and the future of donor anonymity. Human Reproduction. 2019;34(5):786–90.PubMedCrossRef
106.
Winter HB, Dondorp WJ, Ploem MC, Woestenburg NOM, Legemaate J, De Wert GMWR. Evaluatie Embryowet en Wet Donorgegevens Kunstmatige Bevruchting. Den Haag: ZonMw; 2012.
107.
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
108.
Dondorp W, De Wert G, 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
109.
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.
110.
De Wert G, Van der Hout S, Goddijn M, Vassena R, Frith L, Vermeulen N, et al. The ethics of preconception expanded carrier screening in patients seeking assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction Open. 2021 hoaa063. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​hropen/​hoaa063. eCollection 2021.
111.
De Wert G. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: normative reflections. In: Harper J, editor. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis 2nd ed. Cambridge: CUP; 2009.
112.
Vermeesch JR, Voet T, Devriendt K. Prenatal and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Nat Rev Genet. 2016;17(10):643–56.PubMedCrossRef
113.
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
114.
115.
De Die-Smulders CE, De Wert GM, 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
116.
De Wert G, Dondorp W, Shenfield F, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B, Barri P, et al. ESHRE task force on ethics and Law22: preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(8):1610–7.PubMedCrossRef
117.
De Wert G. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the ethics of intermediate cases. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(12):3261–6.PubMedCrossRef
118.
119.
Hvistendahl M. Unnatural Selection. Choosing Boys over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men. New York: Public Affairs; 2011.
120.
Pennings G. Family balancing as a morally acceptable application of sex selection. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(11):2339–43.PubMedCrossRef
121.
Dondorp W, De Wert G, 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):1448–5.
122.
Davis DS. Genetic Dilemmas: Reproductive Technology, Parental Choices, and Children’s Futures. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
123.
Thornhill AR, deDie-Smulders CE, 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
124.
125.
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
126.
Sermon K, Capalbo A, Cohen J, Coonen E, De Rycke M, De Vos A, 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.
127.
Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1846–50.PubMedCrossRef
128.
Mertes H, Repping S, De Wert G. Stating the obvious: discarding embryos does not increase your chance of having a baby. Bionews. 18 January 2016.
129.
Cornelisse S, Zagers M, Kostova E, Fleischer K, Van Wely M, Mastenbroek S. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (abnormal number of chromosomes) in in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2020(9).
130.
Turley P, Meyer MN, Wang N, Cesarini D, Hammonds E, Martin AR, et al. Problems with Using Polygenic Scores to Select Embryos. New Engl J Med. 2021;385(1):78–86.PubMedCrossRef
131.
Forzano F, Antonova O, Clarke A, De Wert G, Hentze S, Jamshidi Y, et al. The use of polygenic risk scores in pre-implantation genetic testing: an unproven, unethical practice (vol 30, pg 493, 2021). Eur J Hum Genet 2022;30(5);493–495.
132.
Winand R, Hens K, Dondorp W, De Wert G, 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
133.
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
134.
135.
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
136.
Zamani Esteki M, Dimitriadou E, Mateiu L, Melotte C, Van der Aa N, 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
137.
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
138.
Segers S, Mertes H. Does human genome editing reinforce or violate human dignity? Bioethics. 2020;34(1):33–40.PubMedCrossRef
139.
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
140.
Boonin D. A defense of abortion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
141.
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
142.
Lorenz JM, Hardart GE. Evolving medical and surgical management of infants with trisomy 18. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2014;26(2):169–76.PubMedCrossRef
143.
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
144.
Koogler TK, Wilfond BS, Ross LF. Lethal language, lethal decisions. Hastings Cent Rep. 2003;33(2):37–41.PubMedCrossRef
145.
146.
Segers S, Pennings G, Mertes H. The ethics of ectogenesis-aided foetal treatment. Bioethics. 2020;34(4):364–70.PubMedCrossRef
147.
Jorgensen JM, Hedley PL, Gjerris M, Christiansen M. Including ethical considerations in models for first-trimester screening for pre-eclampsia. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;28(5):638–43.PubMedCrossRef
148.
Health Council of the Netherlands. NIPT: dynamiek en ethiek van prenatale screening. The Hague: Gezondheidsraad; 2013.
149.
Gadsboll K, Petersen OB, Gatinois V, Strange H, Jacobsson B, Wapner R, et al. Current use of noninvasive prenatal testing in Europe, Australia and the USA: A graphical presentation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99(6):722–30.PubMedCrossRef
150.
Stein Z, Susser M, Guterman AV. Screening programme for prevention of Down’s syndrome. Lancet. 1973;1(7798):305–10.PubMedCrossRef
151.
Solomon A. Far from the tree. Parents, children and the search for identity. New York: Scribner; 2012.
152.
Wright D. Downs. The history of a disability. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
153.
De Jong A, De Wert GM. Prenatal screening: an ethical agenda for the near future. Bioethics. 2015;29(1):46–55.PubMedCrossRef
154.
Dondorp W, De Wert G, 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
155.
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.
156.
Health Council of the Netherlands. Prenatal screening: Down’s syndrome, neural tube defects, routne-ultrasonography. The Hague; 2001.
157.
Dondorp W, Van Lith J. Dynamics of prenatal screening: new developments challenging the ethical framework. Bioethics. 2015;29(1):ii–iv.PubMedCrossRef
158.
159.
Stapleton G. Qualifying choice: ethical reflection on the scope of prenatal screening. Med Health Care Philos. 2017;20(2):195–205.PubMedCrossRef
160.
Christiaens L, Chitty LS, Langlois S. Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis: Expanded NIPT that includes conditions other than trisomies 13, 18, and 21 should be offered. Prenat Diagn. 2021;41(10):1316–23.PubMedCrossRef
161.
Dondorp WJ, De Wert GMWR, Ploem MC. Zoeken naar ‘nevenbevindingen’? Uitbreiding NIPT moet zorgvuldiger. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2022;166:D6802.PubMed
162.
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
163.
Van Prooyen Schuurman L, Sistermans EA, Van Opstal D, Henneman L, Bekker MN, Bax CJ, et al. Clinical impact of additional findings detected by genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing: Follow-up results of the TRIDENT-2 study. Am J Hum Genet. 2022;109(6):1140–52.CrossRef
164.
165.
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
166.
Dondorp W, De Wert G. 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); 2017. pp. 144-53.
167.
Dondorp W, De Wert G. Ethical issues in maternal-fetal medicine. In: Rodeck CH, Whittle MJ, editors. Fetal Medicine: Basic Science and Clinical Practice. London: Elsevier; 2017. p. 139–47.
168.
Murray TH. Moral obligations to the not-yet born: the fetus as patient. Clin Perinatol. 1987;14(2):329–43.PubMedCrossRef
169.
Guedj F, Bianchi DW, Delabar JM. Prenatal treatment of Down syndrome: a reality? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;26(2):92–103.PubMedCrossRef
170.
171.
Guedj F, Siegel AE, Pennings JLA, Alsebaa F, Massingham LJ, Tantravahi U, et al. Apigenin as a Candidate Prenatal Treatment for Trisomy 21: Effects in Human Amniocytes and the Ts1Cje Mouse Model. Am J Hum Genet. 2020;107(5):911–31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
172.
Shakespeare T. Disability rights and wrongs revisited. 2nd ed. London & New York: Routledge; 2014.
173.
174.
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
Prof.dr. Guido de Wert
Dr. Seppe Segers
Dr. Sanne van der Hout
Prof. dr. Wybo Dondorp
Copyright
2024
Uitgeverij
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Boek
Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Print ISBN: 978-90-368-2993-9

Elektronisch ISBN: 978-90-368-2994-6

Copyright: 2024

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-368-2994-6_4