No abstract

Expanded universal carrier screening ( EUCS ) entails a population‐wide screening offer for multiple disease‐causing mutations simultaneously. Although there is much debate about the conditions under which EUCS can responsibly be introduced, there seems to be little discussion about its aim: providing carrier couples with options for autonomous reproductive choice. While this links in with current accounts of the aim of foetal anomaly screening, it is different from how the aim of ancestry‐based carrier screening has traditionally been understood: reducing the disease burden in the population. The reasons why the aim of EUCS is presented in terms of ‘autonomy’ rather than ‘prevention’ have not been spelled out in the literature. This paper seeks to fill this gap by considering the morally relevant similarities and dissimilarities between foetal anomaly screening, ancestry‐based carrier screening and EUCS . When carrier screening is performed in the prenatal period, enhancing autonomy appears the most appropriate aim of EUCS , as the alternative of ‘prevention through selective abortion’ would urge women to terminate wanted pregnancies. However, when screening is conducted in the preconception period, carrier couples can avoid the birth of affected children by other means than selective abortion, for instance preimplantation genetic diagnosis. To the extent that this increased control over passing on a genetic disorder raises questions of parental responsibility, it seems necessary that the account of the aims of EUCS is wider than only in terms of enhancing reproductive autonomy.

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) entails a screening offer for carrier status for multiple recessive disorders simultaneously and allows testing of couples or individuals regardless of ancestry or geographic origin. Although universal ECS—referring to a screening offer for the general population—has generated considerable ethical debate, little attention has been given to the ethics of preconception ECS for patients applying for assisted reproduction using their own gametes. There are several reasons why it is time for a systematic reflection on this practice. Firstly, various European fertility clinics already offer preconception ECS on a routine basis, and others are considering such a screening offer. Professionals involved in assisted reproduction have indicated a need for ethical guidance for ECS. Secondly, it is expected that patients seeking assisted reproduction will be particularly interested in preconception ECS, as they are already undertaking the physical, emotional and economic burdens of such reproduction. Thirdly, an offer of preconception ECS to patients seeking assisted reproduction raises particular ethical questions that do not arise in the context of universal ECS: the professional’s involvement in the conception implies that both parental and professional responsibilities should be taken into account. This paper reflects on and provides ethical guidance for a responsible implementation of preconception ECS to patients seeking assisted reproduction using their own gametes by assessing the proportionality of such a screening offer: do the possible benefits clearly outweigh the possible harms and disadvantages? If so, for what kinds of disorders and under what conditions?

No abstract

No abstract