Values and value conflicts in implementation and use of preconception expanded carrier screening - an expert interview study
BMC Medical Ethics 20 (1):25 (2019)
AbstractEndeavors have been made to found and incorporate ethical values in most aspects of healthcare, including health technology assessment. Health technologies and their assessment are value-laden and could trigger problems with dissemination if they contradict societal norms. Per WHO definition, preconception expanded carrier screening is a new health technology that warrants assessment. It is a genetic test offered to couples who have no known risk of recessive genetic diseases and are interested pregnancy. A test may screen for carrier status of several autosomal recessive diseases and X-linked at one go. The technique has been piloted in the Netherlands and is discussed in other countries. The aim of the study was to examine values and value conflicts that healthcare experts recounted in relation to the discussion of implementation and use of preconception ECS in Sweden. We interviewed ten experts, who were associated with influencing health policymaking in Sweden. We employed systematizing expert interviews, which endeavor to access experts’ specialist knowledge. There were four female and six male informants, of which four were physicians, three bioethicists, one a legal expert, one a theologian and one a political party representative in the parliament. The participants functioned as members of two non-governmental bodies and three governmental organizations. We employed thematic analysis to identify themes, categories and subcategories. Two main themes surfaced: values and value conflicts. The main categories of Respect for persons, Solidarity, Human dignity, Do no harm, Health and Love formed the first theme, while values conflicting with autonomy and integrity respectively, constituted the second theme. Concepts relating to respect for persons were the most commonly mentioned among the participants, followed by notions alluding to solidarity. Furthermore, respondents discussed values conflicting with Swedish healthcare ones such as equality and solidarity. The experts highlighted values and concepts that are distinctive of welfare states such as Sweden and delineated how preconception ECS could challenge such values. Moreover, the analysis revealed that certain values were deemed more substantive than others, judging by the extent and detail of inference; for example, respect for persons and solidarity were on top of the list.
Similar books and articles
The Aims of Expanded Universal Carrier Screening: Autonomy, Prevention, and Responsible Parenthood.Sanne van der Hout, Wybo Dondorp & Guido de Wert - 2019 - Bioethics 33 (5):568-576.
Ethical Conflicts with Hospitals: The Perspective of Nurses and Physicians.A. Gaudine, S. M. LeFort, M. Lamb & L. Thorne - 2011 - Nursing Ethics 18 (6):756-766.
Contested Guideline Development in Australia’s Cervical Screening Program: Values Drive Different Views of the Purpose and Implementation of Organized Screening.Jane Williams, Stacy Carter & Lucie Rychetnik - 2017 - Public Health Ethics 10 (1).
Fuzzy Logic and Preconceptional Genetic Carrier Screening.Julia Inthorn - 2014 - Archives for the Philosophy and History of Soft Computing 2014 (1).
Pre- and Post-Testing Counseling Considerations for the Provision of Expanded Carrier Screening: Exploration of European Geneticists’ Views.Sandra Janssens, Davit Chokoshvili, Danya F. Vears, Anne De Paepe & Pascal Borry - 2017 - BMC Medical Ethics 18 (1):46.
Value Reorientation and Intergenerational Conflicts in Ageing Societies.Wim J. A. Van Den Heuvel - 2015 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 40 (2):201-220.
Precaution and Solidarity.Matti Hayry - 2005 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 14 (2):199-206.
The Role of Socially Embedded Concepts in Breast Cancer Screening: An Empirical Study with Australian Experts.Lisa M. Parker & Stacy M. Carter - 2016 - Public Health Ethics 9 (3):276-289.
European Values in Bioethics: Why, What, and How to Be Used. [REVIEW]Matti Häyry - 2003 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24 (3):199-214.
Measuring or Valuing Population Health: Some Conceptual Problems.D. M. Hausman - 2012 - Public Health Ethics 5 (3):229-239.
Sex Preference and Interest in Preconception Sex Selection: A Survey Among Pregnant Women in the North of Jordan.Edgar Dahl - 2009 - Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics 24 (7):1665-1669.
Self-Tracking for Health and the Quantified Self: Re-Articulating Autonomy, Solidarity, and Authenticity in an Age of Personalized Healthcare.Tamar Sharon - 2017 - Philosophy and Technology 30 (1):93-121.
Cystic Fibrosis Carrier Screening in Veneto (Italy): An Ethical Analysis. [REVIEW]Tommaso Bruni, Matteo Mameli, Gabriella Pravettoni & Giovanni Boniolo - 2012 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 15 (3):321-328.
Precaution and Solidarity.Matti Häyry - 2005 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 14 (2):199-206.
Limiting Solidarity in the Netherlands: A Two-Tier System on the Way.Ruud H. J. Ter Meulen - 1995 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (6).
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
No citations found.
References found in this work
Solidarity in Contemporary Bioethics – Towards a New Approach.Barbara Prainsack & Alena Buyx - 2012 - Bioethics 26 (7):343-350.
Basic Ethical Principles in European Bioethics and Biolaw: Autonomy, Dignity, Integrity and Vulnerability – Towards a Foundation of Bioethics and Biolaw.Jacob Dahl Rendtorff - 2002 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 5 (3):235-244.
Respect: Or, How Respect for Persons Became Respect for Autonomy.M. Therese Lysaught - 2004 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (6):665 – 680.