Allyse, Megan A

AbstractThe introduction of cell‐free DNA prenatal genetic screening has rekindled discussion of ethical and social questions surrounding prenatal testing, perceptions of disability, and abortion. The growing use of prenatal genetic screening presents a unique opportunity to assess decision‐making around new methods of prenatal testing; especially as there is little available research comparing individual and cultural differences that affect a pregnant woman's decision‐making on prenatal testing. We performed a content analysis of online pregnancy forums in the United States and Mainland China. Content from January 2012 to December 2013 was identified through search methodologies and refined to remove duplication. China‐based content was translated by a native Mandarin speaker. We used qualitative analysis methods to identify common themes in the dataset. There were 333 English responses and 519 Mandarin responses. Three main themese were identified in the data: decision making factors, attitude towards the pregnancy, and attitudes towards abortion. Women's narratives reflected how broader social forces can have an impact on intimate personal decision‐making. Women in the Mandarin dataset evoked stronger narratives of community and/or family decision‐making in pregnancy and were more accepting of the possibility of abortion in the event of a finding of fetal abnormality. Narrative in the English dataset more frequently evoked ideas of unconditional love, regardless of fetal diagnosis, but also acknowledged much stronger support services for individuals with disability and less awareness of stigma. These results highlight the necessity of awareness around how broader cultural and social factors can consciously or unconsciously impact women's decisions and highlight potential focus areas for future counseling efforts.

AbstractThe rapid clinical implementation of cell‐free DNA (cfDNA) screening, a non‐invasive method of prenatal genetic screening, has outpaced research on its social and ethical implications. This study is the first to compare the ethical and practical views of Spanish‐ and English‐speaking pregnant women in the United States about cfDNA screening. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with diverse Spanish‐ and English‐speaking women who had received prenatal care at a large academic medical center. Of the 24 interviewees, ten were Latinas who were interviewed in Spanish; English‐language interviews were conducted with seven non‐Hispanic Asian and seven non‐Hispanic White women. Participants held positive opinions concerning the accuracy of cfDNA screening and often noted that it would enhance preparedness. Participants also expressed concerns about the possibility of inaccurate results and the potentially negative effects of cfDNA screening on the experience of pregnancy. Differences emerged between Spanish and English speakers in their portrayals of their relationships with prenatal health care providers, the extent to which they questioned providers’ advice, their ethical concerns, and their informational needs. We emphasize the importance of customizing prenatal test counseling to the needs of the individual patient, providing educationally appropriate counseling and literature, and mitigating potential language barriers.

Recently, new noninvasive prenatal genetic screening technologies for Down syndrome and other genetic conditions have become commercially available. Unique characteristics of these screening tests have reignited long‐standing concerns about prenatal testing for intellectual and developmental disabilities. We conducted a web‐based survey of a sample of the US public to examine how attitudes towards disability inform views of prenatal testing in the context of these rapidly advancing prenatal genetic screening technologies. Regardless of opinion toward disability, the majority of respondents supported both the availability of screening and the decision to continue a pregnancy positive for aneuploidy. Individuals rationalized their support with various conceptions of disability; complications of the expressivist argument and other concerns from the disability literature were manifested in many responses analyzed. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Noninvasive prenatal genetic testing (NIPT) for chromosomal aneuploidy involving the analysis of cell-free fetal DNA became commercially available in 2011. The low false-positive rate of NIPT, which reduces unnecessary prenatal invasive diagnostic procedures, has led to broad clinician and patient adoption. We discuss the ethical, legal, and social issues raised by rapid and global dissemination of NIPT. The number of women using NIPT is anticipated to expand, and the number of conditions being tested for will continue to increase as well, raising concerns about the routinization of testing and negative impacts on informed decision making. Ensuring that accurate and balanced information is available to all pregnant women and that access to NIPT is equitable will require policy guidance from regulators, professional societies, and payers. Empirical evidence about stakeholders' perspectives and experiences will continue to be essential in guiding policy development so that advances in NIPT can be used effectively and appropriately to improve prenatal care.