Affiliation:
1. Centre of Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven , Leuven, Belgium
2. Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki , Helsinki, Finland
3. Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC , Rotterdam, The Netherlands
4. Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC , Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION
Would the different regulatory approaches for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in Europe permit the implementation of preimplantation genetic testing using polygenic risk scores (PGT-P)?
SUMMARY ANSWER
While the regulatory approaches for PGT differ between countries, the space provided for potential implementation of PGT-P seems limited in all three regulatory models.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY
PGT is a reproductive genetic technology that allows the testing for hereditary genetic disorders and chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation. Throughout its history, PGT has largely been regarded as an ethically sensitive technology. For example, ethical questions have been raised regarding the use of PGT for adult-onset conditions, non-medical sex selection, and human leukocyte antigen typing for the benefit of existing siblings. Countries in which PGT is offered each have their own approach of regulating the clinical application of PGT, and a clear overview of legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe is lacking. An emerging development within the field of PGT, namely PGT-P, is currently bringing new ethical tensions to the forefront. It is unclear whether PGT-P may be applied within the current regulatory frameworks in Europe. Therefore, it is important to investigate current regulatory frameworks in Europe and determine whether PGT-P fits within these frameworks.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION
The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the legal and practical regulation of the use of PGT in seven selected European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK) and critically analyse the different approaches with regards to regulatory possibilities for PGT-P. Between July and September 2023, we performed a thorough and extensive search of websites of governments and governmental agencies, websites of scientific and professional organizations, and academic articles in which laws and regulations are described.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS
We investigated the legal and regulatory aspects of PGT by analysing legal documents, regulatory frameworks, scientific articles, and guidelines from scientific organizations and regulatory bodies to gather relevant information about each included country. The main sources of information were national laws relating to PGT.
MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE
We divided the PGT regulation approaches into three models. The regulation of PGT differs per country, with some countries requiring central approval of PGT for each new indication (the medical indication model: the UK, the Netherlands), other countries evaluating each individual PGT request at the local level (the individual requests model: France, Germany), and countries largely leaving decision-making about clinical application of PGT to healthcare professionals (the clinical assessment model: Belgium, Italy, Spain). In the countries surveyed that use the medical indication model and the individual requests model, current legal frameworks and PGT criteria seem to exclude PGT-P. In countries using the clinical assessment model, the fact that healthcare professionals and scientific organizations in Europe are generally negative about implementation of PGT-P due to scientific and socio-ethical concerns, implies that, even if it were legally possible, the chance that PGT-P would be offered in the near future might be low.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION
The results are based on our interpretation of publicly available written information and documents, therefore not all potential discrepancies between law and practice might have been identified. In addition, our analysis focuses on seven—and not all—European countries. However, since these countries are relevant players within PGT in Europe and since they have distinct PGT regulations, the insights gathered give relevant insights into diverse ways of PGT regulation.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that provides a thorough overview of the legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe. Our analysis of how PGT-P fits within current regulation models provides guidance for healthcare professionals and policymakers in navigating the possible future implementation of PGT-P within Europe.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(s)
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 813707. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
N/A.
Funder
European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program
Marie Skłodowska-Curie
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献