Rethinking the Burden of Traditional Informed Consent Prior to Prenatal Genetic Screening

IF 2.3 3区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Megan Allyse, Kirsten Riggan, Natasha Bonhomme, Marsha Michie
{"title":"Rethinking the Burden of Traditional Informed Consent Prior to Prenatal Genetic Screening","authors":"Megan Allyse,&nbsp;Kirsten Riggan,&nbsp;Natasha Bonhomme,&nbsp;Marsha Michie","doi":"10.1002/hast.4976","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>The ethics literature and professional guidelines call for extensive discussions prior to prescreening consent to prenatal cell-free DNA screening to, theoretically, allow patients to make decisions that match their values and goals of care. Most patients, however, actively avoid in-depth moral deliberation when consenting to prenatal screening and then receive a screen-negative result, suggesting that an information-heavy process is irrelevant for average-risk pregnancies. In addition, extensive information-based consent procedures are not feasible in many resource-limited contexts. Meanwhile, patients and families with screen-positive results frequently report minimal support following screening, resulting in long-term distress and suboptimal outcomes. We argue for a fundamental shift to an approach we call “just-in-time consent”: identifying the essential information for values-based decisions prior to screening while relocating resources and moral deliberation to when families receive screen-positive results. This model both ensures that patients and families receive support when they most need it and maintains high standards for the ethical provision of prenatal genetic screening</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":55073,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Center Report","volume":"55 2","pages":"29-38"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Center Report","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.4976","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The ethics literature and professional guidelines call for extensive discussions prior to prescreening consent to prenatal cell-free DNA screening to, theoretically, allow patients to make decisions that match their values and goals of care. Most patients, however, actively avoid in-depth moral deliberation when consenting to prenatal screening and then receive a screen-negative result, suggesting that an information-heavy process is irrelevant for average-risk pregnancies. In addition, extensive information-based consent procedures are not feasible in many resource-limited contexts. Meanwhile, patients and families with screen-positive results frequently report minimal support following screening, resulting in long-term distress and suboptimal outcomes. We argue for a fundamental shift to an approach we call “just-in-time consent”: identifying the essential information for values-based decisions prior to screening while relocating resources and moral deliberation to when families receive screen-positive results. This model both ensures that patients and families receive support when they most need it and maintains high standards for the ethical provision of prenatal genetic screening.

重新思考传统的产前遗传筛查前知情同意的负担
伦理文献和专业指南要求在预先筛查之前进行广泛的讨论,同意产前无细胞DNA筛查,理论上,允许患者做出符合其价值观和护理目标的决定。然而,大多数患者在同意进行产前筛查时,会主动避免深入的道德考虑,然后得到筛查阴性的结果,这表明一个信息量很大的过程与平均风险怀孕无关。此外,广泛的基于信息的同意程序在许多资源有限的情况下是不可行的。同时,筛查结果呈阳性的患者和家属经常报告筛查后的支持很少,导致长期痛苦和次优结果。我们主张从根本上转向一种我们称之为“及时同意”的方法:在筛查之前确定基于价值观的决策的基本信息,同时将资源和道德考虑转移到家庭收到筛查阳性结果时。这种模式既能确保患者和家庭在最需要的时候得到支持,又能保持提供产前遗传筛查的高标准。
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
Hastings Center Report
Hastings Center Report 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hastings Center Report explores ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine, health care, public health, and the life sciences. Six issues per year offer articles, essays, case studies of bioethical problems, columns on law and policy, caregivers’ stories, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and book reviews. Authors come from an assortment of professions and academic disciplines and express a range of perspectives and political opinions. The Report’s readership includes physicians, nurses, scholars, administrators, social workers, health lawyers, and others.
×
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