A Framework for Unrestricted Prenatal Whole-Genome Sequencing: Respecting and Enhancing the Autonomy of Prospective Parents

REFERENCES

• Alexander, E., S. Kelly, and L. Kerzin-Storrar. 2015. Non-invasive prenatal testing: UK genetic counselors’ experiences and perspectives. Journal of Genetic Counseling 24 (2):300–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allison, M. 2013. Genomic testing reaches into the womb. Nature Biotechnology 31 (7):595–601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics, Committee on Genetics, and American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Social Ethical and Legal Issues Committee. 2013. Policy statement: Ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children. Pediatrics 131 (3):620–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2008. Ethical issues in genetic testing. ACOG Committee opinion no. 410. Obstetrics and Gynecology 111:1495–502.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2007. Sex selection. ACOG Committee opinion no. 360. Obstetrics and Gynecology 109:475–78.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• American Society of Human Genetics Social Issues Subcommittee on Familial Disclosure. 1998. Professional disclosure of familial genetic information. American Journal of Human Genetics 62 (2):474–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aro, A. R., et al. 1997. Acceptance of genetic testing in a general population: Age, education and gender differences. Patient Education and Counseling 32 (1):41–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asch, A., and D. Wasserman. 2015. Reproductive testing for disability. In Routledge Companion to Bioethics, eds. J. Arras, E. Fenton, and R. Kukla, 417–32. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Baruch, S., D. Kaufman, and K. L. Hudson. 2008. Genetic testing of embryos: Practices and perspectives of US in vitro fertilization clinics. Fertility and Sterility 89 (5):1053–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayefsky, M., and B. Jennings. 2015. Regulating preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the United States: The limits of unlimited selection, 43. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Bengiamin, M. I., J. A. Capitman, and M. B. Ruwe. 2010. Disparities in initiation and adherence to prenatal care: impact of insurance, race-ethnicity and nativity. Maternal and Child Health Journal 14 (4):618–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benn, P., et al. 2014. Obstetricians and gynecologists' practice and opinions of expanded carrier testing and noninvasive prenatal testing. Prenatal Diagnosis 34 (2):145–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berkman, B. E., and S. C. Hull. 2014. The “right not to know” in the genomic era: Time to break from tradition? American Journal of Bioethics 14 (3):28–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berkman, B. E., S. C. Hull, and L. G. Biesecker. 2015. Scrutinizing the right not to know. American Journal of Bioethics 15 (7):17–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernhardt, B. A., et al. 2013. Women's experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results. Genetics in Medicine 15 (2):139–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bianchi, D. W. 2012. From prenatal genomic diagnosis to fetal personalized medicine: progress and challenges. Nature Medicine 18 (7):1041–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biesecker, L. G. 2012. Opportunities and challenges for the integration of massively parallel genomic sequencing into clinical practice: lessons from the ClinSeq project. Genetics in Medicine 14 (4):393–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borry, P., et al. 2011. Preconceptional genetic carrier testing and the commercial offer directly-to-consumers. Human Reproduction 26 (5):972–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botkin, J. R. 1995. Fetal privacy and confidentiality. Hastings Center Report 25 (5):32–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botkin, J. R. 2000. Line drawing: developing professional standards for prenatal diagnostic services. In Prenatal testing and disability rights, ed. E. Parens and A. Asch, 288–307. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bryant, A. S., et al. 2010. Racial/ethnic disparities in obstetric outcomes and care: prevalence and determinants. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 202 (4):335–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant, A. S., et al. 2015. Variation in women's understanding of prenatal testing. Obstetrics and Gynecology 125 (6):1306–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunnik, E. M., et al. 2013. A tiered-layered-staged model for informed consent in personal genome testing. European Journal of Human Genetics 21 (6):596–601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssens, A. C. J. W. 2016. Designing babies through gene editing: Science or science fiction? Genetics in Medicine, 1–2.
   Google Scholar
• Cheon, J. Y., J. Mozersky, and R. Cook-Deegan. 2014. Variants of uncertain significance in BRCA: A harbinger of ethical and policy issues to come? Genome Medicine 6 (12):1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chetty, S., M. J. Garabedian, and M. E. Norton. 2013. Uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in women following positive aneuploidy screening. Prenatal Diagnosis 33 (6):542–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daley, R., M. Hill, and L. S. Chitty. 2014. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis: Progress and potential. Archives of Disease in Childhood-Fetal and Neonatal Edition 99 (5):F426–F430.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Berker, A. O., et al. 2016. Computations of uncertainty mediate acute stress responses in humans. Nature Communications 7: 10996.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong, A., et al. 2011. Advances in prenatal screening: The ethical dimension. Nature Reviews Genetics 12 (9):657–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong, A., et al. 2013. The scope of prenatal diagnosis for women at increased risk for aneuploidies: Views and preferences of professionals and potential users. Journal of Community Genetics 4 (1):125–35.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Deans, Z., A. J. Clarke, and A. J. Newson. 2015. For your interest? The ethical acceptability of using non-invasive prenatal testing to test ‘purely for information.’ Bioethics 29 (1):19–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillow, C. 12 August 2013. The next big thing in pregnancy: Sequencing your baby's genome. Fortune. http://fortune.com/2013/08/12/the-next-big-thing-in-pregnancy-sequencing-your-babys-genome ( accessed on May 29, 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Dondorp, W., et al. 2015. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: Challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening. European Journal of Human Genetics 23 (11):1438–1450.
   Google Scholar
• Donley, G., S. C. Hull, and B. E. Berkman. 2012. Prenatal whole genome sequencing: Just because we can, should we? Hastings Center Report 42 (4):28–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dworkin, G. 1982. Is more choice better than less? Midwest Studies in Philosophy 7 (1):47–61.
   Google Scholar
• Ekwo, E. E., et al. 1985. Factors influencing maternal estimates of genetic risk. American Journal of Medical Genetics 20 (3):491–504.
   Google Scholar
• Elwyn, G., et al. 2006. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. British Medical Journal 333 (7565):417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. 2001. Preconception gender selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertility and Sterility 75 (5):861–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. 2015. Use of reproductive technology for sex selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertility and Sterility 103 (6):1418–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan, H. C., et al. 2012. Non-invasive prenatal measurement of the fetal genome. Nature 487 (7407):320–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrant, W. 1985. Who's for amniocentesis? The politics of prenatal screening. In The sexual politics of reproduction, ed. H. Homans, 96–122. Surrey, UK: Gower.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, R. M., P. K. Agatisa, and B. Nutter. 2014. What women want: Lead considerations for current and future applications of noninvasive prenatal testing in prenatal care. Birth 41 (3):276–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrell, R. M., et al. 2011. Risk and uncertainty: Shifting decision making for aneuploidy screening to the first trimester of pregnancy. Genetics in Medicine 13 (5):429–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrell, R. M., et al. 2016. The use of noninvasive prenatal testing in obstetric care: Educational resources, practice patterns, and barriers reported by a national sample of clinicians. Prenatal Diagnosis 36 (6):499–506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrelly, C. 2004. The genetic difference principle. American Journal of Bioethics 4 (2):21–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrelly, E., et al. 2012. Genetic counseling for prenatal testing: where is the discussion about disability? Journal of Genetic Counseling 21 (6):814–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrimond, H. R., and S. E. Kelly. 2013. Public viewpoints on new non-invasive prenatal genetic tests. Public Understanding of Science 22 (6):730–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frassoni, F. 2006. The laws covering in vitro fertilization and embryo research in Italy. Bone Marrow Transplantation 38 (1):5–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabriel, S. 5 Apr 2016. Genomic data processing on google cloud platform. Google Research Blog. Available at: https://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2016/04/genomic-data-processing-on-google-cloud.html ( accessed June 3, 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Garrouste, C., J. Le, and E. Maurin. 2011. The choice of detecting Down syndrome: Does money matter? Health Economics 20 (9):1073–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gavaghan, C. 2007. Right problem, wrong solution: A pro-choice response to “expressivist” concerns about preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16 (01):20–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutiérrez-Mateo, C., et al. 2009. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of single-gene disorders: Experience with more than 200 cycles conducted by a reference laboratory in the United States. Fertility and Sterility 92 (5):1544–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayden, E. C. 2014. The $1,000 genome. Nature 507 (7492):294–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, M., C. Lewis, and L. S. Chitty. 2016. Stakeholder attitudes and needs regarding cell-free fetal DNA testing. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 28 (2):125–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillman, S. C., et al. 2013. “If it helps…”: The use of microarray technology in prenatal testing: Patient and partners reflections. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 161 (7):1619–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing genetic risks. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Institute of Medicine. 2009. Innovations in service delivery in the age of genomics: Workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kellogg, G., et al. 2014. Attitudes of mothers of children with Down syndrome towards noninvasive prenatal testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling 23 (5):805–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, J. S. 2008. Predicting probability: Regulating the future of preimplantation genetic screening. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics 8 (2):283–358.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kitzman, J. O., et al. 2012. Noninvasive whole-genome sequencing of a human fetus. Science Translational Medicine 4 (137):137–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khoshnood, B., et al. 2003. Socioeconomic and state-level differences in prenatal diagnosis and live birth prevalence of Down's syndrome in the United States. Revue d'épidémiologie et de santé publique 51 (6):617–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuppermann, M, et al. 2014. Effect of enhanced information, values clarification, and removal of financial barriers on use of prenatal genetic testing: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 312 (12):1210–1217.
   Google Scholar
• Lachance, C. R., et al. 2010. Informational content, literacy demands, and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers. Genetics in Medicine 12 (5):304–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larion, S., et al. 2014. Uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing at a large academic referral center. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 211 (6):651–e1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lázaro-Muñoz, G., et al. 2015. Looking for trouble: Preventive genomic sequencing in the general population and the role of patient choice. American Journal of Bioethics 15 (7):3–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leach, M. 15 September 2015. Down syndrome screening no longer a recommended preventive service. Down Syndrome Prenatal Testing. http://www.downsyndromeprenataltesting.com/down-syndrome-screening-no-longer-a-recommended-preventive-service/ ( Accessed June 6, 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, C., C. Silcock, and L. S. Chitty. 2013. Non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome: Pregnant women's views and likely uptake. Public Health Genomics 16 (5):223–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loi, M. 2012. On the very idea of genetic justice. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 21 (1):64–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacArthur, D. 14 May 2012. Genome interpretation costs will not spiral out of control. Genomes Unzipped. http://genomesunzipped.org/2012/05/genome-interpretation-costs-will-not-spiral-out-of-control.php ( accessed June 03, 2016).
   Google Scholar
• McGillivray, G., et al. 2012. Genetic counselling and ethical issues with chromosome microarray analysis in prenatal testing. Prenatal Diagnosis 32 (4):389–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikat-Stevens, N. A., I. A. Larson, and B. A. Tarini. 2014. Primary-care providers' perceived barriers to integration of genetics services: A systematic review of the literature. Genetics in Medicine 17 (3):169–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minkoff, H., and R. Berkowitz. 2014. The case for universal prenatal genetic counseling. Obstetrics and Gynecology 123 (6):1335–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munthe, C. 2015. A new ethical landscape of prenatal testing: Individualizing choice to serve autonomy and promote public health: A radical proposal. Bioethics 29 (1):36–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, T. H. 1996. The worth of a child. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Library of Medicine. 2015. Muscular distrophy. Medline Plus. Available at: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/musculardystrophy.html#cat5 ( accessed July 10, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• National Society of Genetic Counselors. 2016. Professional status survey: Executive summary. http://nsgc.org/p/cm/ld/fid=68 ( accessed May 29, 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Netzer, C., D. Schmitz, and W. Henn. 2012. To know or not to know the genomic sequence of a fetus. Nature Reviews Genetics 13 (10):676–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbett, R. E., and L. Ross. 1980. Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Norton, M. E., et al. 2013. Effects of changes in prenatal aneuploidy screening policies in an integrated health care system. Obstetrics and Gynecology 121 (2, Part 1): 265–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Connor, A. M., et al. 2009. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 3 (3): CD001431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Öhman, S. G., C. Grunewald, and U. Waldenström. 2003. Women's worries during pregnancy: Testing the Cambridge Worry Scale on 200 Swedish women. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 17 (2):148–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, and Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. 2008. Preimplantation genetic testing: A Practice Committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility 90 (5):S136–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• President's Council on Bioethics. 2003. Beyond therapy: Biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• President's Council on Bioethics. 2004. Reproduction and responsibility: The regulation of new biotechnologies. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Public Law 110–374. 2008. Prenatally and postnatally diagnosed conditions awareness act. 42 USC 201. 122 STAT 4051.
   Google Scholar
• Ravitsky, V., and B. S. Wilfond. 2006. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. American Journal of Bioethics 6 (6):8–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regalado, A. 2013. Prenatal DNA sequencing. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/513691/prenatal-dna-sequencing ( accessed May 29, 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Roe v. Wade. 1973. 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147.
   Google Scholar
• Rolland, J. S., and J. K. Williams. 2005. Toward a biopsychosocial model for 21st-century genetics. Family Process 44 (1):3–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross, L. F., et al. 2013. Technical report: Ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children. Genetics in Medicine 15 (3):234–245.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Savulescu, J. 2001. Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics 15 (5–6):413–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savulescu, J. 2007. Future people, involuntary medical treatment in pregnancy and the duty of easy rescue. Utilitas 19 (1):1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Say, R., S. Robson, and R. Thomson. 2011. Helping pregnant women make better decisions: a systematic review of the benefits of patient decision aids in obstetrics. British Medical Journal Open 1 (2): e000261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sayres, L. C., et al. 2011. Cell-free fetal DNA testing: a pilot study of obstetric healthcare provider attitudes toward clinical implementation. Prenatal Diagnosis 31 (11):1070–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seror, V. 2008. Fitting observed and theoretical choices–women's choices about prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. Health Economics 17 (5):557–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharp, R. R. 2011. Downsizing genomic medicine: approaching the ethical complexity of whole-genome sequencing by starting small. Genetics in Medicine 13 (3):191–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiloh, S. 1994. Heuristics and biases in health decision making. In eds. L. Heath et al., Applications of heuristics and biases to social issues, 13–33. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Shiloh, S., and M. Sagi. 1989. Effect of framing on the perception of genetic recurrence risks. American Journal of Medical Genetics 33 (1):130–135.
   Google Scholar
• Shiloh, S., et al. 2015. The impact of multiplex genetic testing on disease risk perceptions. Clinical genetics 87 (2):117–23.
   Google Scholar
• Shkedi-Rafid, S., et al. 2016. What results to disclose, when, and who decides? Healthcare professionals’ views on prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis. Prenatal Diagnosis 36 (3):252–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shuster, E. 2007. Microarray genetic screening: A prenatal roadblock for life? The Lancet 369 (9560):526–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. S., C. Sugg, J. Tiro, and V. L. Champion. 2015. The health belief model. In Health Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practice, 75–94. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Skirton, H. 2015. Direct to consumer testing in reproductive contexts-should health professionals be concerned? Life sciences, Society and Policy 11 (1):1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Souka, A. P., et al. 2010. Attitudes of pregnant women regarding termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormality. Prenatal diagnosis 30 (10):977–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturgis, P., H. Cooper, and C. Fife-Schaw. 2005. Attitudes to biotechnology: Estimating the opinions of a better-informed public. New Genetics and Society 24 (1):31–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tischler, R., et al. 2011. Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: Pregnant women's interest and expected uptake. Prenatal Diagnosis 31 (13):1292–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Schendel, R. V., et al. 2014. Attitudes of pregnant women and male partners towards non-invasive prenatal testing and widening the scope of prenatal screening. European Journal of Human Genetics 22 (12):1345–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wasserman, D. 2003. A choice of evils in prenatal testing. Florida State University Law Review 30:295–313.
   Google Scholar
• Westerfield, L., S. Darilek, and I. B. van den Veyver. 2014. Counseling challenges with variants of uncertain significance and incidental findings in prenatal genetic screening and diagnosis. Journal of Clinical Medicine 3 (3):1018–32.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wertz, D. C. 2000. Drawing lines: Notes for policymakers. In Prenatal testing and disability rights, ed. E. Parens and A. Asch, 261–87. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilfond, B. S., and K. A. B. Goddard. 2015. It's complicated: Criteria for policy decisions for the clinical integration of genome-scale sequencing for reproductive decision making. Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine 3 (4):239–42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wright, C. 2009. Cell-free fetal nucleic acids for non-invasive prenatal diagnosis: Report of the UK expert working group. PHG Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Yurkiewicz, I. R., B. R. Korf, and L. S. Lehmann. 2014. Prenatal whole-genome sequencing: Is the quest to know a fetus's future ethical? Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 69 (4):197–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar