Objective: Prenatal screening has become an increasingly common procedure all over the world. It offers couples useful information relating to the health of their fetus, although it faces us with serious ethical dilemmas as well. This study was conducted to find out the attitudes of Iranian scholars towards prenatal screening and counseling with respect to ethical issues. Methods: Two hundred and one physicians, genetic and religious scholars were interviewed with regard to demographics and attitudes towards the ethical dilemmas in prenatal screening and counseling. Interviews were analyzed using the four-principle approach. Results: Findings showed scholars’ attitudes towards: (1) the right of couples to choose prenatal screening, (2) the role of prenatal screening and counseling concerning termination of an affected fetus, (3) screening results and emotional distress in couples, and (4) the impact of prenatal screening and counseling on disability rate. Conclusion: Iranian scholars were willing to consider prenatal screening to help prevent transmission of diseases to the next generation. This goal is attained through the autonomous choice of the couple to participate in prenatal screening and counseling.

Keywords:
Prenatal screening, Counseling, Genetic screening, Ethical dilemmas, Four-principle approach, Decision-making
1.
Strauss RP: Beyond easy answers: prenatal diagnosis and counseling during pregnancy. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2002;39:164–168.
2.
Zindler L: Ethical decision making in first trimester pregnancy screening. J Perinat Neonat Nurs 2005;19:122–131.
3.
Wyszynski DF, Perandones C, Bennun D: Attitudes toward prenatal diagnosis, termination of pregnancy, and reproduction by parents of children with nonsyndromic oral clefts in Argentina. Prenat Diagn 2003;23:722–727.
4.
Britt DW, Risinger ST, Miller V, Mans MK, Krivchenia EL, Evans M: Determinants of parental decisions after the prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: bringing in context. Am J Med Genet 2000;93:410–416.
5.
Schechtman KB, Gray DL, Baty JD, Rothman SM: Decision making for termination of pregnancies with fetal anomalies: analysis of 53,000 pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99:216–222.
6.
Shaffer BL, Caughey AB, Norton ME: Variation in the decision to terminate pregnancy in the setting of fetal aneuploidy. Prenat Diagn 2006;26:667–671.
7.
Zahed L, Nabulsi M, Tamim H: Attitudes towards prenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancy among health professionals in Lebanon. Prenat Diagn 2002;22:880–886.
8.
Carnevale A, Lisker R, Villa AR, Casanueva E, Alonso E: Counseling following diagnosis of a fetal abnormality: comparison of different clinical specialists in Mexico. Am J Med Genet 1997;69:23–28.
9.
Zlotogora J: Parental decisions to abort or continue a pregnancy with an abnormal finding after an invasive prenatal test. Prenat Diagn 2002;22:1102–1106.
10.
Hedayat KM, Shooshtarizadeh P, Raza M: Therapeutic abortion in Islam: contemporary views of Muslim Shiite scholars and effect of recent Iranian legislations. J Med Ethics 2006;32:652–657.
11.
Najmabadi H, Ghamari A, Sahebjam F, Kariminejad R, Hadavi V, Khatibi T, Samavat A, Mehdipour E, Modell B, Kariminejad MH: Fourteen-year experience of prenatal diagnosis of thalassemia in Iran. Community Genet 2006;9:87–92.
12.
Hewison J, Green JM, Ahmed S, Cuckle HS, Hirst J, Hucknall C, Thornton JG: Attitudes to prenatal testing and termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormality: a comparison of white and Pakistani women in the UK. Prenat Diagn 2007;27:419–430.
13.
Karimi M, Peyvandi F, Siboni S, Ardeshiri R, Gringeri A, Mannucci PM: Comparison of attitudes towards prenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancy for haemophilia in Iran and Italy. Haemophilia 2004;10:367–369.
14.
Samavat A, Modell B: Iranian national thalassaemia screening programme. BMJ 2004;329:1134–1137.
15.
Sharma G, McCullough LB, Chervenak FA: Ethical considerations of early (first vs. second trimester) risk assessment disclosure for trisomy 21 and patient choice in screening versus diagnostic testing. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2007;145:99–104.
16.
Roberts CD, Stough LM, Parrish LH: The role of genetic counseling in the elective termination of pregnancies involving fetuses with disabilities. J Spec Educ 2002;36:48–55.
17.
Mason J: Qualitative Researching, ed 2. London, SAGE, 2002.
18.
Duncan RE, Foddy B, Delatycki MB: Refusing to provide a prenatal test: can it ever be ethical? BMJ 2006;333:1066–1068.
19.
Chervenak FA, McCullough LB, Chasen ST: Clinical implications of the ethics of informed consent for first-trimester risk assessment for trisomy 21. Semin Perinatol 2005;29:277–279.
20.
Berkowitz RL, Roberts J, Minkoff H: Challenging the strategy of maternal age based prenatal genetic counseling. JAMA 2006;295:1446–1448.
21.
Haddow JE: Couple screening to avoid thalassemia: successful in Iran and instructive for us all. J Med Screen 2005;12:55–56.
22.
Kornman LH, Wortelboer MJM, Beekhuis JR, Morssink LP, Mantingh A: Women’s opinions and the implications of first- versus second-trimester screening for fetal Down’s syndrome. Prenat Diag 1997;17:1011–1018.
23.
Nicolaides KH, Chervenak FA, McCullough LB, Avgidou K, Papageorghiou A: Evidence-based obstetric ethics and informed decision-making by pregnant women about invasive diagnosis after first-trimester assessment of risk for trisomy 21. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:322–326.
24.
Modra L: Prenatal genetic testing kits sold at your local pharmacy: promoting autonomy or promoting confusion? Bioethics 2006;20:254–263.
25.
Berkenstadt M, Shiloh S, Barkai G, Katznelson MBM, Goldman B: Perceived personal control (PPC): a new concept in measuring outcome of genetic counseling. Am J Med Genet 1999;82:53–59.
26.
Biesecker B, Peters K: Process studies in genetic counseling: peering into the black box. Am J Med Genet 2001;106:191–198.
27.
Goldberg D, Hillier V: A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychol Med 1979;9:139–145.
28.
Quadrelli R, Quadrelli A, Mechoso B, Laufer M, Jaumandreu C, Vaglio A: Parental decisions to abort or continue a pregnancy following prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities in a setting where termination of pregnancy is not legally available. Prenat Diagn 2007;27:228–232.
29.
Korenromp MJ, Page-Christiaens GCML, van den Bout J, Mulder EJH, Visser GHA: Maternal decision to terminate pregnancy in case of Down syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;196:149.e1–149.e11.
30.
Chasen ST, McCullough LB, Chervenak FA: Is nuchal translucency screening associated with different rates of invasive testing in an older obstetric population? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190:769–774.
31.
Parens E, Asch A: Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: reflections and recommendations. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 2003;9:40–47.
32.
Strong C: Fetal anomalies: ethical and legal considerations in screening, detection, and management. Clin Perinatol 2003;30:113–126.
33.
Abolghasemi H, Amid A, Zeinali S, Radfar MH, Eshghi P, Rahiminejad MS, Ehsani MA, Najmabadi H, Akbari MT, Afrasiabi A, Akhavan-Niaki H, Hoorfar H: Thalassemia in Iran: epidemiology, prevention, and management. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2007;29:233–238.
34.
Beauchamp T, Childress J: Principles of Biomedical Ethics, ed 5. New York, Oxford University Press, 2001.
© 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
2008
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.