Revue de médecine périnatale

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 72–85 | Cite as

Problèmes éthiques du dépistage prénatal non invasif (DPNI)

Mise au Point / Update
  • 42 Downloads

Résumé

Le dépistage prénatal non invasif constitue un progrès qui présente de nombreux avantages pour la femme enceinte. Mais il pose cependant des problèmes d’ordre éthique de trois types : 1) ceux liés aux conditions techniques d’exactitude et d’efficience clinique en vue de la pertinence de son utilisation ; 2) les problèmes d’enjeu éthique portant sur la non-maléficience (rassurer, éviter les examens invasifs inutiles, les fausses couches et leurs conséquences psychologiques, ainsi que des traitements anténatals inutiles et favoriser les décisions et choix reproductifs) ; ainsi que les enjeux éthiques informationnels, d’autonomie et de justice ; 3) les défis éthiques sont enfin discutés, concernant aussi bien le rôle de la qualité de la vie (QOV) que les risques de stigmatisation et de discrimination des handicapés, et l’extension des utilisations du dépistage prénatal non invasif (DPNI) à la sélection du sexe, la détermination de la paternité ainsi que les problèmes du consumérisme et de l’eugénisme. Ces analyses établissent que l’usage du DPNI entraîne de nouvelles responsabilités pour les tests génétiques et les choix reproductifs.

Mots clés

Tests génétiques ADN circulant Éthique 

Ethical issues regarding non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPNS)

Abstract

The antenatal noninvasive testing represents a new progress with many possible benefits for the pregnant woman. However, it also raises three types of ethical problems: 1) those linked to the technical conditions of this test in respect of the exactitude of the results and its relevant use in clinical situations; 2) those raised by the stakes of nonmaleficience (to reassure the women, to avoid many invasive diagnosis, and miscarriage with their psychological consequences, useless antenatal treatments, and the facilitation of antenatal decisions) and the stakes of information, autonomy, and justice are also mentioned; 3) the new challenges of this new testing are also discussed with special concern for the quality of life, the risks of stigmas and discrimination of the disabled persons and the extension of this test to sex selection, paternity determination, consumerism, and the concern of eugenics. These analyses conclude that new responsibilities are raised by these tests and for the reproductive choices to come.

Keywords

Genetic testing Circulating DNA Ethics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. 1.
    Williams B (2002) Vérité et véracité. Essai de généalogie. Éditions Gallimard, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, et al (2012) Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. New Engl J Med 367:2175–84CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Finning K, Martin P, Summers J, et al (2008) Effect of a high throughput RhD typing on fetal DNA in maternal plasma on the use of anti-RhD immunoglobulin in RhD negative pregnant women: prospective feasibility study. Br Med J 336:816–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scheffer PG, van der Schoot CE, Page-Christiaens GCML, de Haas M (2011) Non invasive fetal blood group genotyping of rhesus D, c, E and of K in alloimmunised pregnant women: evaluation of a 7-year clinical experience. BJOG 118:1340–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Norton ER, Lévy B (2013) Noninvasive prenatal testing: the future is now. Rev Obstet Gynecol 6:48–62Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    MM Gill (2015) Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for fetal aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 45:249–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang H (2015) Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomies 21, 18 and 13: clinical experience from 146.958 pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 45:530–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haute Autorité de santé (2015) Les performances des tests de dépistage de la trisomie 21 fœtale par l’analyse de l’ADN libre circulant. SeptembreGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wright CF, Burton H (2009) The use of cell-free fetal nucleic acids in maternal blood for non-invasive prenatal diagnosis. Hum Reprod Update 15:139–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tsui NBY, Kadir RA, Chan KCA, et al (2011) Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of hemophilia by microfluidic digital PCR analysis of maternal plasma DNA. Blood 117:3684–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tardy-Gidollet V, Menassa R, Costa JM, et al (2014) New management strategy of pregnancies at risk of congenital adrenal hyperplasia using fetal sex determination in maternal serum: french cohort of 258 cases (2002–2011). J Clin Endocrinol Metab 99:1180–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kowaleck I, Mühlhoff A, Bachmann S, Gembruch U (2002) Depressive reactions and stress related to prenatal medicine procedures. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 19:18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lou S, Mikkelsen L, Hvidman L (2014) Does screening for Down’s syndrome cause anxiety in pregnant women? A systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 94:15–27 doi: 101111/oogs.12482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fonseca A, Nazare B, Canavarro MC (2011) Patterns of parental emotional reactions after pre- or postnatal diagnosis of congenital anomaly. J Reprod Infant Psychol 29:320–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kleinveld JH, Timmermans DR, van den Berg M, et al (2007) Does offering and performing prenatal screening influence women’s attachment to their unborn child? A longitudinal randomized controlled trial. Prenat Diagn 27:757–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Comité consultatif national d’éthique pour les sciences de la vie et de la santé (2013) Avis 120: Questions éthiques associées au développement des tests génétiques fœtaux sur sang maternel. Paris 2013Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hunfeld JA, Agterberg G, Wladimiroff JW, Passchier J (1996) Quality of life and anxiety in pregnancies after late pregnancy loss: a case-control study. Prenat Diagn 16:783–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee C, Slade P (1996) Miscarriage as a traumatic event: a review of the literature and new implications for intervention. J Psychosom Res 40:235–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    David M, Forest MG (1984) Prenatal treatment of congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency. J Pediatr 105:799–803CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    New MI, Tong TK, Yuen T, et al (2014) Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of congenital adrenal hyperplasia using cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 99: E1022–E30CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Deans Z, Hill M, Chitty LS, Lewis C (2013) Non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders: exploring the ethics. Eur J Hum Genet 21:713–18CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Garcia E, Timmermans DR, van Leewen E (2008) The impact of ethical beliefs on decisions about prenatal screening tests: searching for justification. Soc Sci Med 66:753–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reid B, Sinclair M, Barr O, et al (2009) A meta-analysis of pregnant women’s decision-making processes with regard to antenatal screening for Down syndrome. Soc Sci Med 69:1561–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parsons E, Atkinson P (1992) Lay construction of genetic risk. Sociol Health Illness 14:437–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lupton D (1993) Risk as moral danger: the social and political functions of risk discourse in public health. Int J Health Serv 23:425–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wendell S (1996) The social construction of disability. In: The rejected body, Editions Routledge. Taylor and Francis Group, New York, NY, USA, pp 57–72Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reindal SM (2000) Disability, gene therapy and eugenics — a challenge to John Harris. J Med Ethics 26:89–94CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Asch A (2014) Disability equality and prenatal testing: contradictory or compatible? Fla State Univ Law Rev 30:315–42Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dahl K, Hvidman L, Jorgensen FS, Kesmodel US (2011) Knowledge of prenatal screening and psychological management of test decisions. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38:152–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Boyle RJ, de Crespigny L, Savulescu J (2003) An ethical approach to giving couples information about their fetus. Human Reprod 18:2253–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schoonen HM, Essink-Bot ML, Van Agt HM, et al (2011) Informed decision making about the fetal anomaly scan: what knowledge is relevant? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37:649–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smith DK, Shaw RW, Marteau TM (1994) Informed consent to undergo serum screening for Down’s syndrome: gap between policy and practice. Brit Med J 309:776CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    van den Berg M, Timmermans DRM, Ten Kate LP, et al (2005) Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening? Genet Med 7: 332–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Favre R, Duchange N, Vayssiere C, et al (2007) How important is consent in maternal serum screening for Down syndrome in France? Information and consent evaluation in maternal serum screening for Down syndrome: a French study. Prenat Diagn 27:197–205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ames AG, Metcalfe SA, Archibald AD, et al (2015) Measuring informed choice in population-based reproductive genetic screening: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet 23:8–21CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Benn PA, Chapman AR (2010) Ethical challenges in providing noninvasive prenatal diagnosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 22:126–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lewis C, Hill M, Skirton H, Chitty LS (2015) Development and validation of a measure of informed choice for women undergoing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidiy. Europ J Hum Genet Online 1–8Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S (2001) A measure of informed choice. Health Expect 4:99–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schneider CE (1998) The practice of autonomy. Patients, doctors and medical decisions. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Seavilleklein V (2009) Challenging the rhetoric of choice in prenatal screening. Bioethics 23:68–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schmitz D, Netzer C, Henn W (2009) An offer you can’t refuse? Ethical implications of non-invasive prenatal decisions. Nature 10:515Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tischler R, Hudgins L, Blumenfeld Y, et al (2011) Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: pregnant women’s interest and expected utptake. Prenat Diagn 31:1292–99CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hill M, Fisher J, Chitty LS, Morris S (2012) Women’s and health professionals’ preferences for prenatal test for Down syndrome: a discrete choice experiment to contrast noninvasive prenatal diagnosis with current invasive tests. Genet Med 14:905–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Farrimond HR, Kelly SE (2013) Public viewpoints on new noninvasive prenatal genetic tests. Public Underst Sci 22:736–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bishop Mills C, Erzikova E (2012) Prenatal testing, disability, and termination: an examination of newspaper framing. Disability Studies Quaterly 23:2–19Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    O’Neil O (2001) Informed consent and genetic information. Stu Hist Phil Biol & Biomed Sci 32:689–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Diericks K (2003) Dépistage génétique: y a-t-il un consentement éclairé ? Laennec 51:6–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Baumann H (2008) Reconsidering relational autonomy. Personal autonomy for fully socially embedded and temporally extended selves. Analyse & Kritik 30:445–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Franson MP, Essink-Bot ML, Vogel I, et al (2010) Ethnic screening in informed decision-making about prental screening for Down’s syndrome. J Epidemiol Community Health 64:262–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mill JS (1990) De la liberté (1859). Éditions Press Pocket, ParisGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    O’Neil O (2003) Some limits of informed consent. J Med Ethics 29:4–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lemerise EA, Arsenio WP (2000) An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in social information processing. Child Dev 71:107–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lerner JS, Keltner D (2001) Fear, anger and risk. J Pers Soc Psychol 81:146–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Loewenstein G (2005) Hot-cold empathy gap and medical decision making. Health Psychol 24:S49–S56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Greaney AM, O’Mathuna D, Scott A (2012) Patient autonomy and choice in healthcare: self-testing devices in a case point. Med Health Care Philos 15:383–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kolm JC (1996) Modern theories of justice. MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass, USA, p. 154Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rawls J (2008) La justice comme équité. Une reformulation de la théorie de la justice. Éditions La Découverte. Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Daniels N (2008) Just health. Meeting health needs fairly. Cambridge University Press. New York, NY, USA, pp.118–33Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Susman MR, Amor DJ, Muggli E, et al (2010) Using population-based data to predict the impact of introducing noninvasive pre-natal diagnosis for Down syndrome. Genet Med 12:298–303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Heyd D (1992) Genethics. Moral issues in the creation of people. University of California Press Berkeley & Los Angeles, USAGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Petrou S, Kupek E (2009) Estimating preference-based Health Utilities Index Mark 3 utility scores for childhood conditions in England and Scotland. Med Decis Making 29:291–303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Cohen JS, Biesecker B (2010) Quality of life in rare genetic conditions: a systematic review. Am J Med Genet A 152:1136–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Jardine J, Gliniamaia SV, McConachie H, et al (2013) Self-reported quality of life of young children with conditions from early infancy: a systematic review. Pediatrics 134:e1129–e148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ahmed S, Hewison J, Green JM, et al (2008) Decisions about testing and termination of pregnancy for different fetal conditions: a qualitative study of European and Pakistani mothers of affected children. J Genet Couns 17:560–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Zlotogora J (2002) Parental decisions to abort or continue a pregnancy with an abnormal finding after an invasive prenatal test. Prenat Diagn 22:1102–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Mugno D, Ruta L, Genitori d’Arrigo V, Mazzone L (2007) Impairment of quality of life in parents of children or adolescents with pervasive development disorder. Health Qual Life Outcomes 5:22–31CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Raina P, O’Donnell M, Scwellnus H, et al (2004) Caregiving and caregiver burden: conceptual models to guide research and practice. BMC Pediatr 4:e1–e13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Skreden M, Skart H, Mait UF, et al (2010) Long term parental psychological distress among parents of children with a malformation — A prospective longitudinal study. Am J Genet Part A 152A:2193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C (2001) Disability and sunshine: can hedonic predictions be improved by drawing attention to focusing illusions or emotional adaptation? J Experimental Psychol 11:111–22Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Schwarz N, Smith D (2005) Misimagining the unimaginable: the disability paradox and health care decision making. Heath Psychol 24:S57–S62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Skotko BG, Levine SP, Goldstein R (2011) Self-perceptions from people with Down syndrome. Am J Genet 155:2360–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Van Riper M (2011) Families of children with Down syndrome: responding to “a change of plan” with resilience. J Pediatr Nurs 2007 22:116–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Barnett WS, Boyce GC (1995) Effects of children with Down syndrome on parents activities. Am J Ment Retard 100:115–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Jensen KM, Taylor LC, Davis MM (2013) Primary care for adults with Down syndrome: adherence to preventive healthcare recommendations. J Intellectual Disabil Res 57:409–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Jones L, Bellis MA, Wood S. et al (2012) Prevalence and risk of violence against children with disabilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Lancet 380:899–907CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Turner HA, Vanderminden J, Finkelhor D, et al (2011) Disability and victimization in national sample of children and youth. Child Maltreat 16:275–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    European report on preventing child maltreat. In: Sethi D, Bellis M, Hughes K, Gilbert R, Mitis F, Galea G (eds) OMS 2013Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Sidebotham P, Heron J (2006) Child maltreatment in the “children in the nineties”: a cohort study of risk factors. Child Abuse Neglect 30:497–522CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Bitner M, Zavodny M (2002) Child abuse and abortion availability. Am Econom Rev 92:363–7Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Finkelhor D, Jones L (2006) Why have child maltreatment and child victimization declined? J Social Issues 62:685–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Insee (2011) Tableaux de l’économie françaiseGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    DRESS: Direction de la recherche, des études, des évaluations et des statistiques (2013) Évolution des prestations compensatrices du handicap de 2006 à 2012. Études et résultats no 829. JanvierGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    McDougall R (2005) Acting parentally: an argument against sex selection. J Med Ethics 31:601–5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Wilkinson S, Garard E. Eugenics and the ethics of selective reproduction. Keele University Press pp. 27–34Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Osipenko L, Szczepura A (2011) Non-invasive fetal sexing: medical test or new tool for sex selection? Diversity Health Care 8:37–44Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Heyd D (2003) Male or female, we will create them. The ethics of sex selection for non medical reasons. Ethical Perspect 10:204–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Hall S, Reid E, Marteau TM (2006) Attitudes towards sex selection for non-medical reasons: a review. Prenat Diagn 26:619–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Guo X, Bayliss P, Damewood M, et al (2012) A non invasive test to determine paternity in pregnancy. N Engl J Med 366:1743–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Ryan A, Baner J, Demko Z, et al (2013) Informatics-based, highly accurate, noninvasive prenatal paternity testing. Gen Med 15:473–7Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Hall A, Bostanci A, John S (2009) Ethical, legal, and social issues arising form cell-free fetal DNA technologies. Appendix 3 to the report: cell-free fetal nucleic acids for non-invasive prenatal diagnosis. Hughes Hall Center for Biomedical Science in SocietyGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Newson AJ (2008) Ethical aspects arising from non-invasive fetal diagnosis. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 13:103–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Schwartz B (2006) Le paradoxe du choix. Comment la culture de l’abondance éloigne du bonheur. Éditions Michel Lafon, ParisGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    De Jong A, Dondorp WJ, de Die-Smulders CEM, et al (2010) Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issue explored. Eur J Hum Gen 18:272–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Bishop Mills C, Erzikova E (2012) Prenatal testing, disability and termination: an examination of newspaper framing. Disabil Stud Q 32:1–19Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Hathaway F, Burns E, Ostrer H (2009) Consumer’s desire towards current and prospective reproductive genetic testing. J Genet Couns 18:137–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    van Schendel RV, Kleinveld JH, Dondorp WJ, et al (2014) Attitudes of pregnant women and male partners towards noninvasive testing and widening the scope of prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet 22:1345–50CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Hawkins AK, Ho A (2012) Genetic counseling and the ethical issues around direct to consumer genetic testing. J Genet Couns 21:367–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Heshka JT, Palleschi C, Howley H, et al (2008) A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Gen Med 10:19–32Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Boss CS, Schork NJ, Topol EJ (2011) Effect of direct-to-consumer genomwide profiling to assess disease risk. N Engl J Med 364: 524–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Cole R, Jones G (2013) Testing times: do new prenatal tests signal the end of Down syndrome? New Zealand Med J 126:96–102PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Conseil d’éthique de l’hôpital Femme-Mère-Enfanthôpital Femme-Mère-EnfantBronFrance

Personalised recommendations