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