Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Newborn Screening by Tandem Mass Spectrometry

Ethical and Social Issues

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Canadian Journal of Public Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Emerging technologies like Tandem Mass Spectrometry (TMS) enable multiple tests on a single blood sample and allow the expansion of Newborn Screening (NBS) to include various metabolic diseases. Introducing TMS for NBS raises important social and ethical questions: what are the criteria for adding disorders to screening panels? What evidence justifies expansion of screening? How can equity in NBS access and standards be ensured? How can policy standards be set, given the multiplicity of stakeholders?

To address emerging issues, policy-makers, patient advocates, clinicians and researchers had a workshop during the 2005 Garrod Symposium. The participants received a summary of the discussion and understood the workshop’s goal was to provide a basis for further discussion. This article contributes to this ongoing discussion.

Several proposed recommendations assert the centrality of including social and ethical issues in the assessment of whether or not to introduce TMS. The article outlines five key recommendations for advancing the NBS agenda: national public health leadership; transparency; increased national consistency in NBS strategy, including minimum standards; collaboration between the federal and provincial/territorial governments and diverse stakeholders; and supporting research and/or programs based on effectiveness, which integrate ethical and social issues into assessment.

Résumé

L’émergence de nouvelles technologies comme la spectrométrie de masse en tandem (MS/MS) permet d’effectuer plusieurs tests sur un même échantillon sanguin, ce qui accroît la portée du dépistage néonatal (DNN). L’utilisation de la MS/MS dans le cadre du DNN soulève d’importants enjeux sociaux et éthiques. Quels sont les critères permettant l’ajout de maladies aux programmes de dépistage? Comment justifier l’expansion du dépistage? Comment assurer l’équité de l’accès et des normes en matière de DNN? Comment élaborer des politiques normatives, étant donné la multiplicité des parties intéressées?

Des décideurs, des défenseurs des droits des patients, des cliniciens et des chercheurs ont participé à un atelier lors d’un symposium organisé par la Garrod Association en 2005. Les participants ont reçu un résumé des débats et ont compris que l’atelier, tout comme le présent article, jetterait les bases d’une discussion ultérieure.

Il est important d’inclure les enjeux sociaux et éthiques dans l’évaluation de l’utilisation de la MS/MS. Cet article expose cinq recommandations-clés concernant le DNN: leadership national en santé publique; transparence; uniformité des stratégies nationales, incluant des normes minimales; collaboration entre les gouvernements et les parties intéressées; et soutien à la recherche et/ou aux programmes efficaces qui tiennent compte des enjeux sociaux et éthiques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pollitt RJ, Green A, McCabe CJ, Booth A, Cooper NJ, Leonard JV, et al. Neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism: Cost, yield and outcome. Health Technol Assess 1997;1(7): i–202.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hanley WB. Newborn screening in Canada–Are we out of step? Paediatrics Child Health 2005;10(4):203–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. American College of Medical Genetics. Newborn Screening: Toward a Uniform Screening Panel and System. Rockville, MD: Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005. Available online at: https://doi.org/mchb.hrsa.gov/screening/ (Accessed June 20, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Botkin JR, Clayton EW, Fost NC, Burke W, Murray TH, Baily WA, et al. Comment on: A Report of the American College of Medical Genetics. Report titled Newborn Screening: Toward a Uniform Screening Panel and System. Submitted as public comment. Available for inspection at Maternal and Child Health Bureau/Health Resources and Services Administration Office, Rockville, MD, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Human Genetics Society of Australia (HGSA), Royal Australian College of Physicians (RACP), Newborn Screening Joint Subcommittee. HGSA policy statement 2004: Newborn blood-spot screening. 2004. Available online at: https://doi.org/hgsa.com.au/images/UserFiles/Attachments/hgsapolicystatementnewbornscreening 020418.03.pdf (Accessed June 20, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  6. UK Newborn Screening Program Centre. Newborn blood spot screening in the UK. Policies and standards. United Kingdom: UK Newborn Screening Program Centre, 2005. Available online at: https://doi.org/www.newbornscreening-bloodspot.org.uk (Accessed June 20, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Backgrounder: McGuinty government expands newborn screening program. 2005. Available online at: https://doi.org/www.health.gov.on.ca/english/media/news_releases/archives/nr_06/nov/ nr_112306.html (Accessed June 20, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wilson JMG, Junger G. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease. Geneva, 1968. Report No. 34.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Waisbren SE, Albers S, Amato S, Ampola M, Brewster TG, Demmer L, et al. Effect of expanded newborn screening for biochemical genetic disorders on child outcomes and parental stress. JAMA 2003;290(19):2564–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pandor A, Eastham J, Beverley C, Chilcott J, Paisley S. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism using tandem mass spectrometry: A systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2004;8(12):iii, 1-iii121.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Seymour CA, Thomason MJ, Chalmers RA, Addison GM, Bain MD, Cockburn F, et al. Newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism: A systematic review. Health Technol Assess 1997;1(11):i–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McCabe LL, Therrell BL, Jr., McCabe ER. Newborn screening: Rationale for a comprehensive, fully integrated public health system. Mol Genet Metab 2002;77(4):267–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. American Academy of Pediatrics. Serving the Family From Birth to the Medical Home. A Report From the Newborn Screening Task Force Convened in Washington, DC, May 10–11, 1999. Pediatrics 2000;106(2 Pt 2):383–427.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hiller EH, Landenburger G Natowicz MR. Public participation in medical policy-making and the status of consumer autonomy: The example of newborn-screening programs in the United States [see comments]. Am J Public Health 1997;87(8):1280–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Therrell BL, Jr.. U.S. newborn screening policy dilemmas for the twenty-first century. Mol Genet Metab 2001;74(1-2):64–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21(3):312–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Campbell E, Ross LF. Parental attitudes regarding newborn screening of PKU and DMD. Am J Med Genet A 2003;120(2):209–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre de recherche en droit public, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, succ. Centre-ville, Montreal, QC, H3C 3J7, Canada

    Denise Avard PhD

  2. Hospital Newborn Screening Program of British Columbia, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Hilary Vallance MD

  3. Department of Biochemistry & Medical Genetics and Department of Pediatrics & Child Health, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

    Cheryl Greenberg MD

  4. Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Beth Potter PhD

Authors
  1. Denise Avard PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hilary Vallance MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cheryl Greenberg MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Beth Potter PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denise Avard PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Avard, D., Vallance, H., Greenberg, C. et al. Newborn Screening by Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Can J Public Health 98, 284–286 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03405404

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03405404

MeSH terms

Search

Navigation