Unpacking the notion of “serious” genetic conditions: towards implementation in reproductive decision-making?

Author:

Kleiderman ErikaORCID,Boardman FelicityORCID,Newson Ainsley J.ORCID,Laberge Anne-Marie,Knoppers Bartha MariaORCID,Ravitsky Vardit

Abstract

AbstractThe notion of a “serious” genetic condition is commonly used in clinical contexts, laws, and policies to define and delineate both the permissibility of and, access to, reproductive genomic technologies. Yet, the notion lacks conceptual and operational clarity, which can lead to its inconsistent appraisal and application. A common understanding of the relevant considerations of “serious” is lacking. This article addresses this conceptual gap. We begin by outlining existing distinctions around the notion of “serious” that will factor into its appraisal and need to be navigated, in the context of prenatal testing and the use of reproductive genomic technologies. These include tensions between clinical care and population health; the impact of categorizing a condition as “serious”; and the role of perception of quality of life. We then propose a set of four core dimensions and four procedural elements that can serve as a conceptual tool to prompt a mapping of the features of seriousness in any given context. Ultimately, consideration of these core dimensions and procedural elements may lead to improvements in the quality and consistency of decision-making where the seriousness of a genetic condition is a pivotal component at both a policy and practice level.

Funder

Fondation Brocher

Stem Cell Network

Wellcome Trust Investigator Award

Medical Research Future Fund (Australia), Genomics Health Futures Mission (GHFM), Grant GHFM73390

Fonds de recherche du Québec Clinical Research Scholar - Senior Grant

Genome Canada, Génome Québec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference70 articles.

1. Barra M, Broqvist M, Gustavsson E, Henriksson M, Juth N, Sandman L, et al. Severity as a priority setting criterion: setting a challenging research agenda. Health Care Anal. 2020;28:25–44.

2. Nord E, Johansen R. Concerns for severity in priority setting in health care: a review of trade-off data in preference studies and implications for societal willingness to pay for a QALY. Health Policy. 2014;116:281–8.

3. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. European group on ethics in science and new technologies opinion on the ethics of genome editing. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2021. p. 110. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/659034

4. Heritable Human Genome Editing. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2020. p. 238. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25665

5. Comité consultatif national d’éthique pour les sciences de la vie et de la santé. Avis 133 – Enjeux éthiques des modifications ciblées du génome: entre espoir et vigilance. 2019. p. 46. https://www.ccne-ethique.fr/sites/default/files/2021-02/avis_133_-_ad_final.pdf

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3