Should prenatal screening be seen as ‘selective reproduction’? Four reasons to reframe the ethical debate

Journal of Perinatal Medicine - Tập 49 Số 8 - Trang 953-958 - 2021
Christoph Rehmann‐Sutter1
1Institute for History of Medicine and Science Studies, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany

Tóm tắt

Abstract There are a number of problems with the classification of prenatal screening as a form of ‘selective reproduction’ that has become an increasingly dominant classification scheme in the last decade. (1) Since the term ‘selection’ implies choosing one out of several (at least two), it misdescribes the decision to terminate a pregnancy. (2) Deciding whether to have this child is a decision taken within the relationships that constitute the pregnancy. (3) ‘Selection’ is a loaded term, connecting prenatal diagnosis to negative eugenics or to population genetics. (4) Deciding against the birth of a child who would suffer or would not be able to flourish is a decision taken within a negotiation of personal responsibilities and social constraints. The characterization of prenatal screening as selective reproduction is, in a very narrow way, defensible to reconstruct why prenatal screening is permissible in a liberal state and should not be banned, but it needs to be rejected as a general frame for understanding the substance of the ethical issues around prenatal diagnosis and screening. Ethics should rather attempt to create a respectful space of mutual understandings and reflect how women and couples, who are ultimately responsible for these decisions, perceive their responsibilities in care.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Wilkinson, S. Choosing tomorrow’s children: the ethics of selective reproduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.

Reader, S. The ethics of choosing children. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2017.

Schatzki, T. Practice mind-ed orders. In: Schatzki, T, Knorr-Cetina, K, Savigny, E, editors. The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge; 2001:50–63 pp.

Taylor, C. Interpretation and the sciences of man. Rev Metaphys 1971;25:3–51.

Löwy, I. Imperfect pregnancies. A history of birth defects and prenatal diagnosis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2017.

Sheldon, S, Wilkinson, S. Termination of Pregnancy for reason of foetal disability: are there grounds for a special exception in Law? Med Law Rev 2001;9:85–109. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/9.2.85.

Gove Babcock, P, editor. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. Springfield, Mass: Merriam-Webster Inc; 1961.

Reinsch, S, König, A, Rehmann-Sutter, C. Decision-making about non-invasive prenatal testing: women’s moral reasoning in the absence of a risk of miscarriage in Germany. New Genet Soc 2020 Aug 16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2020.1805305 [Epub ahead of print].

Nov-Klaiman, T, Raz, A, Hashiloni-Dolev, Y. Attitudes of Israeli parents of children with Down syndrome toward non-invasive prenatal screening and the scope of prenatal testing. J Genet Couns 2019;28/6:1119–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1162.

Asch, A, Barlevy, D. Disability and genetics: a disability critique of pre-natal testing and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2012.

Glover, J. Choosing children. Genes, disability, and design. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 2006.

Tarkian, T. Die Auswahl zukünftiger Kinder. Zeitschrift für Ethik Moralphilos 2020;3:109–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42048-020-00068-2.

Rehmann-Sutter, C. Why human germline editing is more problematic than selecting between embryos: ethically considering intergenerational relationships. N Bioeth 2018;24:9–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2018.1441669.

Mackenzie, C. Abortion and embodiment. Aust J Philos 1992;70:136–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048409212345041.

Meskus, M. Personalized ethics: the emergence and the effects in prenatal testing. BioSocieties 2012;7:373–92. https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2012.27.

Scully, JL. Disability bioethics. Moral bodies, moral difference. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2008.

Munthe, C. A new ethical landscape of prenatal testing: individualizing choice to serve autonomy and promote public health: a radical proposal. Bioethics 2015;29:36–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12126.

Ravitsky, V. The shifting landscape of prenatal testing: between reproductive autonomy and public health. Hastings Cent Rep 2017;47:S34–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.793.

Rehmann-Sutter, C. Zur ethischen Bedeutung der vorgeburtlichen Diagnostik. In: Anselm, R, Mitscherlich-Schönherr, O, editors. Gelingende Geburt. Interdisziplinäre Erkundungen in umstrittenen Terrains. Berlin: De Gruyter; 2021:273–97 pp.

Rothman, BK. Prenatal diagnosis. In: Arras, JD, Steinbock, B, editors. Ethical issues in modern medicine, 5th ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield; 1999:378–84 pp.

Mitscherlich-Schönherr, O. In Verteidigung der Rückhaltlosigkeit der menschlichen Geburt. ZEMO 2020;3:137–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42048-020-00070-8.

Schües, C. Das Versprechen der Geburt. In: Anselm, R, Mitscherlich-Schönherr, O, editors. Gelingende Geburt. Interdisziplinäre Erkundungen in umstrittenen Terrains. Berlin: De Gruyter; 2021:143–65 pp.

Foth, H. Avoiding “selection”? References to history in current German debates about non-invasive prenatal testing. Bioethics 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12880.

Wahlberg, A, Gammeltoft, TM. Introduction: Kinds of children. In: Wahlberg, A, Gammeltoft, TM, editors. Selective reproduction in the 21st century. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan/Springer Nature; 2018:1–24 pp.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Perinatal Medicine

Tập 49 Số 8

953-958

Thông tin tác giả