Prenatal/preconceptional and newborn screening programs have been a focus of recent policy debates that have included attention to ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSIs). In parallel, there has been an ongoing discussion about whether and how ELSIs may be addressed in health technology assessment (HTA). We conducted a knowledge synthesis study to explore both guidance and current practice regarding the consideration of ELSIs in HTA for prenatal/preconceptional and newborn screening. As the concluding activity for this project, we held a Canadian workshop to discuss the issues with a diverse group of stakeholders. Based on key workshop themes integrated with our study results, we suggest that population-based genetic screening programs may present particular types of ELSIs and that a public health ethics perspective is potentially highly relevant when considering them. We also suggest that approaches to addressing ELSIs in HTA for prenatal/preconceptional and newborn screening may need to be flexible enough to respond to diversity in HTA organizations, cultural values, stakeholder communities, and contextual factors. Finally, we highlight a need for transparency in the way that HTA producers move from evidence to conclusions and the ways in which screening policy decisions are made.

Keywords:
Ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSIs), Genetic screening, Health technology assessment, Neonatal screening, Prenatal screening, Public health ethics
1.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics: Genetic screening: a supplement to the 1993 report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Available at www.nuffieldbioethics.org, 2006.
2.
Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society: U.S. system of oversight of genetic testing: a response to the charge of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Draft report. Available at http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba/sacghs/reports/SACGHS_oversight_report.pdf, 2008.
3.
Godard B, ten Kate L, Evers-Kiebooms G, Ayme S: Population genetic screening programmes: principles, techniques, practices, and policies. Eur J Hum Genet 2003;11(suppl 2):S49–S87.
4.
McNally E, Cambon-Thomsen A, Brazell C, Cassiman JJ, Kent A, Lindpaintner K, Lobato de Faria P, Niese D, Abbing HR, Solbakk JH, Tack H, Tambuyzer E, Weihrauch TR, Wendel E: 25 recommendations on the ethical, legal and social implications of genetic testing.European Commission. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2004/genetic/pdf/recommendations_en.pdf, 2004.
5.
Green MJ, Botkin JR: ‘Genetic exceptionalism’ in medicine: clarifying the differences between genetic and nongenetic tests. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:571–575.
6.
Driscoll DA, Gross SJ: First trimester diagnosis and screening for fetal aneuploidy. Genet Med 2008;10:73–75.
7.
ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 77: Screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:217–227.
8.
Summers AM, Langlois S, Wyatt P, Wilson RD: Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2007;29:146–179.
9.
Committee on Genetics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: ACOG Committee Opinion. Number 325, December 2005. Update on carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. Obstet Gynecol 2005;106:1465–1468.
10.
Achterbergh R, Lakeman P, Stemerding D, Moors EH, Cornel MC: Implementation of preconceptional carrier screening for cystic fibrosis and haemoglobinopathies: a sociotechnical analysis. Health Policy 2007;83:277–286.
11.
Roe AM, Shur N: From new screens to discovered genes: the successful past and promising present of single gene disorders. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2007;145C:77–86.
12.
Pollitt RJ, Green A, McCabe CJ, Booth A, Cooper NJ, Leonard JV, Nicholl J, Nicholson P, Tunaley JR, Virdi NK: Neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism: cost, yield and outcome. Health Technol Assess 1997;1:1–202.
13.
Watson MS, Lloyd-Puryear MA, Mann MY, Rinaldo P, Howell RR: Newborn screening: toward a uniform screening panel and system. Genet Med 2006;8(suppl 1):1S–252S.
14.
Botkin JR, Clayton EW, Fost NC, Burke W, Murray TH, Baily MA, Wilfond B, Berg A, Ross LF: Newborn screening technology: proceed with caution. Pediatrics 2006;117:1793–1799.
15.
Grosse SD, Boyle CA, Kenneson A, Khoury MJ, Wilfond BS: From public health emergency to public health service: the implications of evolving criteria for newborn screening panels. Pediatrics 2006;117:923–929.
16.
Howell RR: We need expanded newborn screening. Pediatrics 2006;117:1800–1805.
17.
Wilcken B: Mini-Symposium: Newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism –clinical effectiveness. J Inherit Metab Dis 2006;29:366–369.
18.
Burke W, Zimmern R: Moving beyond ACCE: An Expanded Framework for Genetic Test Evaluation. A Paper for the United Kingdom Genetic Testing Network. Available at www.phgfoundation.org, 2007.
19.
Burke W, Zimmern R, Kroese M: Defining purpose: a key step in genetic test evaluation. Genet Med 2007;9:675–681.
20.
Parens E, Asch A: Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: reflections and recommendations. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 2003;9:40–47.
21.
Parens E, Asch A: The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing. Reflections and recommendations. Hastings Cent Rep 1999;29:S1–S22.
22.
Munger KM, Gill CJ, Ormond KE, Kirschner KL: The next exclusion debate: assessing technology, ethics, and intellectual disability after the Human Genome Project. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 2007;13:121–128.
23.
Grant R, Flint K: Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy: a commentary by the Canadian Down Syndrome Society. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2007;29:580–582.
24.
Vassy C: From a genetic innovation to mass health programmes: the diffusion of Down’s Syndrome prenatal screening and diagnostic techniques in France. Soc Sci Med 2006;63:2041–2051.
25.
Dormandy E, Michie S, Hooper R, Marteau TM: Low uptake of prenatal screening for Down syndrome in minority ethnic groups and socially deprived groups: a reflection of women’s attitudes or a failure to facilitate informed choices? Int J Epidemiol 2005;34:346–352.
26.
Green JM, Hewison J, Bekker HL, Bryant LD, Cuckle HS: Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:1–109.
27.
Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S: A measure of informed choice. Health Expect 2001;4:99–108.
28.
Potter BK, O’Reilly N, Etchegary H, Howley H, Graham I, Walker M, Coyle D, Chorny Y, Cappelli M, Boland I, Wilson BJ: Exploring informed choice in the context of prenatal testing: findings from a qualitative study. Health Expectations, in press.
29.
Suter SM: The routinization of prenatal testing. Am J Law Med 2002;28:233–270.
30.
van den Berg M, Timmermans DR, Ten Kate LP, van Vugt JM, van der Wal G: Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening? Genet Med 2005;7:332–338.
31.
Williams C, Alderson P, Farsides B: Is nondirectiveness possible within the context of antenatal screening and testing? Soc Sci Med 2002;54:339–347.
32.
Williams C, Sandall J, Lewando-Hundt G, Heyman B, Spencer K, Grellier R: Women as moral pioneers? Experiences of first trimester antenatal screening. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:1983–1992.
33.
Green NS, Dolan SM, Murray TH: Newborn screening: complexities in universal genetic testing. Am J Public Health 2006;96:1955–1959.
34.
Avard D, Kharaboyan L, Knoppers BM: Newborn screening for sickle cell disease: socio-ethical implications; in McLean SAM (ed): First Do No Harm: Law, Ethics and Healthcare. Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2006, pp 495–510.
35.
Avard D, Vallance H, Greenberg C, Potter B: Newborn screening by tandem mass spectrometry: ethical and social issues. Can J Public Health 2007;98:284–286.
36.
Comeau AM, Accurso FJ, White TB, Campbell PW 3rd, Hoffman G, Parad RB, Wilfond BS, Rosenfeld M, Sontag MK, Massie J, Farrell PM, O’Sullivan BP: Guidelines for implementation of cystic fibrosis newborn screening programs: Cystic Fibrosis Foundation workshop report. Pediatrics 2007;119:e495–e518.
37.
Grosse SD, Olney RS, Baily MA: The cost effectiveness of universal versus selective newborn screening for sickle cell disease in the US and the UK: a critique. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2005;4:239–247.
38.
Gurian EA, Kinnamon DD, Henry JJ, Waisbren SE: Expanded newborn screening for biochemical disorders: the effect of a false-positive result. Pediatrics 2006;117:1915–1921.
39.
Potter BK, Avard D, Wilson BJ: Newborn blood spot screening in four countries: stakeholder involvement. J Public Health Policy 2008;29:121–142.
40.
Waisbren SE, Albers S, Amato S, Ampola M, Brewster TG, Demmer L, Eaton RB, Greenstein R, Korson M, Larson C, Marsden D, Msall M, Naylor EW, Pueschel S, Seashore M, Shih VE, Levy HL: Effect of expanded newborn screening for biochemical genetic disorders on child outcomes and parental stress. JAMA 2003;290:2564–2572.
41.
Wilfond BS, Parad RB, Fost N: Balancing benefits and risks for cystic fibrosis newborn screening: implications for policy decisions. J Pediatr 2005;147:S109–S113.
42.
INAHTA: HTA resources. Definitions. Available at http://www.inahta.org/HTA/.
43.
Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, Horder M: International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:89–95.
44.
Lehoux P, Blume S: Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law 2000;25:1083–1120.
45.
Lehoux P, Tailliez S, Denis JL, Hivon M: Redefining health technology assessment in Canada: diversification of products and contextualization of findings. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20:325–336.
46.
Hofmann B: Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:312–318.
47.
Johri M, Lehoux P: The great escape? Prospects for regulating access to technology through health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003;19:179–193.
48.
Autti-Ramo I, Makela M: Ethical evaluation in health technology assessment reports: An eclectic approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23:1–8.
49.
Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B: Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23:9–16.
50.
Grunwald A: The normative basis of (health) technology assessment and the role of ethical expertise. Poiesis Prax 2004;2:175–193.
51.
Lehoux P: The problem of health technology. Policy implications for modern health care systems. New York, Routledge, 2006.
52.
Andermann A, Beauchamp S, Costea I, Blancquaert I: Guiding decision-making for population-based screening: A systematic and multi-dimensional approach applicable to genetics. Montréal, Agence d’évaluation des technologies et des modes d’intervention en santé (AETMIS), 2007.
53.
Childress JF, Faden RR, Gaare RD, Gostin LO, Kahn J, Bonnie RJ, Kass NE, Mastroianni AC, Moreno JD, Nieburg P: Public health ethics: mapping the terrain. J Law Med Ethics 2002;30:170–178.
54.
Citrin T, Modell SM: Genomics and public health: Ethical, legal, and social issues; in: Genomics and Population Health: United States 2003. Atlanta, GA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Genomics and Disease Prevention, 2004.
55.
Kass NE: An ethics framework for public health. Am J Public Health 2001;91:1776–1782.
56.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics: Public health: ethical issues. Available at www.nuffield bioethics.org, 2007.
57.
Upshur RE: Principles for the justification of public health intervention. Can J Public Health 2002;93:101–103.
58.
Daniels N: Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ 2000;321:1300–1301.
59.
Kenny N, Giacomini M: Wanted: a new ethics field for health policy analysis. Health Care Anal 2005;13:247–260.
60.
NICE: Social value judgements. Principles for the development of NICE guidance. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/socialvaluejudgements/socialvaluejudgements.jsp.
61.
Wailoo A, Anand P: The nature of procedural preferences for health-care rationing decisions. Soc Sci Med 2005;60:223–236.
© 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.