Beyond severity: utility as a criterion for setting the scope of RGCS

IF 3.7 2区 生物学 Q2 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Lisa Dive, Anne-Marie Laberge, Lucinda Freeman, Eline M. Bunnik
{"title":"Beyond severity: utility as a criterion for setting the scope of RGCS","authors":"Lisa Dive, Anne-Marie Laberge, Lucinda Freeman, Eline M. Bunnik","doi":"10.1038/s41431-024-01640-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) allows prospective parents to identify and act upon their chances of having a child with a genetic condition. In deciding which genetic conditions to include in RGCS, severity is often used as a criterion. However, the concept is inherently complex, subjective and multidimensional, and determinations of severity will remain intractably contested. We propose the concept of utility as a criterion for setting the scope of RGCS, and put forward two central arguments for doing so. First, utility is a more appropriate and effective concept as it responds to context and makes an explicit connection between the purpose of RGCS and the value of information obtained for that purpose: namely, to facilitate reproductive decision-making. Utility comprises both clinical and personal utility, and varies according to the availability and accessibility of reproductive options, including pre-implantation genetic testing, prenatal genetic diagnosis, and termination of pregnancy. Second, there are ethical reasons for preferring utility over severity. Utility is a property of the information gleaned from RGCS, while severity is a property of a genetic condition or of an instance of this condition in a person. While consideration of the severity of genetic conditions is not lost when focusing on utility, the need to rely on value judgements regarding the quality of life of people who live with genetic conditions is circumvented. Therefore, utility should replace severity as justification for the inclusion of genetic conditions in RGCS programmes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12016,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Human Genetics","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Human Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01640-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) allows prospective parents to identify and act upon their chances of having a child with a genetic condition. In deciding which genetic conditions to include in RGCS, severity is often used as a criterion. However, the concept is inherently complex, subjective and multidimensional, and determinations of severity will remain intractably contested. We propose the concept of utility as a criterion for setting the scope of RGCS, and put forward two central arguments for doing so. First, utility is a more appropriate and effective concept as it responds to context and makes an explicit connection between the purpose of RGCS and the value of information obtained for that purpose: namely, to facilitate reproductive decision-making. Utility comprises both clinical and personal utility, and varies according to the availability and accessibility of reproductive options, including pre-implantation genetic testing, prenatal genetic diagnosis, and termination of pregnancy. Second, there are ethical reasons for preferring utility over severity. Utility is a property of the information gleaned from RGCS, while severity is a property of a genetic condition or of an instance of this condition in a person. While consideration of the severity of genetic conditions is not lost when focusing on utility, the need to rely on value judgements regarding the quality of life of people who live with genetic conditions is circumvented. Therefore, utility should replace severity as justification for the inclusion of genetic conditions in RGCS programmes.

超越严重性:将效用作为确定地区治理和社会服务范围的标准
生殖遗传携带者筛查(RGCS)可以让未来的父母识别出他们的孩子是否有遗传病,并采取相应的措施。在决定将哪些遗传病纳入 RGCS 时,严重程度通常被用作一个标准。然而,这一概念本身具有复杂性、主观性和多维性,对严重程度的判定仍会存在棘手的争议。我们建议将效用概念作为确定研究与观测分类范围的标准,并为此提出了两个核心论点。首先,效用是一个更合适、更有效的概念,因为它能根据具体情况作出反应,并将生殖健康研究的目的与所获信息的价值(即促进生殖决策)明确联系起来。效用既包括临床效用,也包括个人效用,并根据生殖选择的可用性和可及性而有所不同,包括植入前基因检测、产前基因诊断和终止妊娠。其次,从伦理角度看,实用性优于严重性。效用是从遗传学基因检测中收集到的信息的一种属性,而严重性则是遗传病或遗传病在人体内的实例的一种属性。虽然在关注效用时不会忽略遗传病的严重性,但却避免了对遗传病患者生活质量的价值判断。因此,效用应取代严重性,成为将遗传性疾病纳入研究、治疗和康复计划的理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Human Genetics
European Journal of Human Genetics 生物-生化与分子生物学
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
5.80%
发文量
216
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Human Genetics is the official journal of the European Society of Human Genetics, publishing high-quality, original research papers, short reports and reviews in the rapidly expanding field of human genetics and genomics. It covers molecular, clinical and cytogenetics, interfacing between advanced biomedical research and the clinician, and bridging the great diversity of facilities, resources and viewpoints in the genetics community. Key areas include: -Monogenic and multifactorial disorders -Development and malformation -Hereditary cancer -Medical Genomics -Gene mapping and functional studies -Genotype-phenotype correlations -Genetic variation and genome diversity -Statistical and computational genetics -Bioinformatics -Advances in diagnostics -Therapy and prevention -Animal models -Genetic services -Community genetics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信