Public perspectives on the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis

Winkelman, William D.; Missmer, Stacey A.; Myers, Dale E.; Ginsburg, Elizabeth S.

doi:10.1007/s10815-015-0456-8

Cited by 25 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In accordance with the findings of the current study, the review found stronger disapproval for personal use compared to general availability, and variation by proposed method, such that disapproval was higher for sex-selective abortion than for sex-selective IVF and for a hypothetical blue/pink pill. More recent studies have similar findings [ 12 – 14 , 20 – 22 ], including one for Australia [ 23 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

High and growing disapproval of sex-selection technology in Australia

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council has banned the use of assisted reproductive technology for social sex selection, but notes “there is limited research into the question of whether Australians support the use of sex selection for non-medical purposes”. This paper investigates Australian attitudes to sex-selection technology by different means (IVF, abortion, and a hypothetical pill), for different reasons (medical, family balancing, any reason), and by differing respondent characteristics (age, sex, education and religiosity).MethodsIn 2007 and 2016, the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes (AuSSA) collected data on the attitudes of Australian adults to sex selection through IVF, abortion, and a hypothetical pill. We calculate population-weighted distributions and 95% confidence intervals of responses, and carry out logistic regressions to investigate the demographic characteristics of Australians who strongly disapprove of IVF or abortion for sex selection.ResultsIn 2016, around three-quarters of AuSSA respondents were opposed to legalising sex selection through IVF for any reason, or for family balancing for a second or third child. Thirty-seven per cent were opposed to IVF for medical sex selection. Two-thirds of respondents in both 2007 and 2016 disapproved or strongly disapproved of IVF for sex selection, while the proportion who strongly disapproved increased from 31 to 40%. Disapproval/strong disapproval of abortion for sex selection increased from 74 to 81% from 2007 to 2016, while strong disapproval alone rose from 44 to 55%. More than 70% of respondents in both 2007 and 2016 stated that a hypothetical pill for sex selection should not be legal. Our analysis finds that female, young, more-educated, and more religious respondents are more likely to strongly disapprove of sex selection via IVF or abortion, and that the increase in those who strongly disapprove from 2007 to 2016 is statistically significant.ConclusionsAustralians generally disapprove of the use of sex-selection technology. If legislation is to be guided by community attitudes, then the prohibition against sex selection for non-medical purposes through assisted reproductive technology should be maintained.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

High and growing disapproval of sex-selection technology in Australia

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studying the predictors of support for eugenics may seem like an outdated question, akin, perhaps, to investigating present day support for slavery. But with the Genetic Essentialism 55 rapid advent of several new genetic technologies, the idea of improving the genes of current and future generations has re-emerged as a topic of public discourse (e.g., Hudson & Scott, 2002;Winkelman, Missmer, Myers, & Ginsburg, 2015). However, in contrast to the early 20 th century when the state was petitioned to lead efforts to enhance a nation's collective genome, this time eugenics is emerging through the backdoor (Duster, 2003).…”

Section: Genetic Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Essentially Biased

Heine

Dar‐Nimrod

Cheung

et al. 2017

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose that people are genetic essentialists -that is, they tend to think of genetic attributions as being immutable, of a specific etiology, natural, and dividing people into homogenous and discrete groups. Although there are rare conditions where genes operate in these kinds of deterministic ways, people overgeneralize from these to the far more common conditions where genes are not at all deterministic. These essentialist biases are associated with some harmful outcomes such as racism, sexism, pessimism in the face of illnesses, political polarization, and support for eugenics, while at the same time they are linked with increased tolerance and sympathy for gay rights, mental illness, and less severe judgments of responsibility for crime. We will also discuss how these essentialist biases connect with the burgeoning direct-to-consumer genomics industry and various kinds of genetic engineering. Overall, these biases appear rather resistant to efforts to reduce them, although genetics literacy predicts weaker essentialist tendencies. Genetic Essentialism 4Essentially Biased: Why People Are Fatalistic About Genes By all accounts, the genomics revolution has arrived. Since the first human genome was sequenced in 2003, the cost of sequencing genomes has fallen by more than a million-fold, with the technical advancements of genotyping technologies far outpacing the rapid speed of improvements in computer transistors that was famously encapsulated in Moore's law (National Human Genome Research Institute, 2016). As a result of these dramatic technical innovations, the new industry of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomics

show abstract

“…18,28 In a large cross-sectional study involving 1006 respondents, the overall support for PGD was only 66% in favour of applying PGD for diseases causing lifelong disability. 29 In earlier studies of carrier parents, PGD is seen primarily as an opportunity to avoid termination of pregnancy, and was seen more favourably than adoption, donor insemination and egg donation. 30 In the same study, 85% of carriers of recessive genetic disorders acknowledged that having a genetic link to the child is an important factor in choosing PGD.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although such a high success rate of PGD for SCD will help improve the uptake of PGD, other factors associated with the acceptance of PGD need to be considered, including moral, political and religious values 18,28 . In a large cross‐sectional study involving 1006 respondents, the overall support for PGD was only 66% in favour of applying PGD for diseases causing lifelong disability 29 . In earlier studies of carrier parents, PGD is seen primarily as an opportunity to avoid termination of pregnancy, and was seen more favourably than adoption, donor insemination and egg donation 30 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cumulative outcome of pre‐implantation genetic diagnosis for sickle cell disease: a 5‐year review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To review the cumulative outcome of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) cycles performed for prevention of sickle cell disease (SCD). Couples referred for PGD for SCD between April 2012 and October 2017 were included. Ovarian stimulation was performed using a short gonadotrophinreleasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol and follicle-stimulating hormone injections. The GnRH agonist was used to trigger oocyte maturation. Oocytes were fertilised using intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Trophectoderm biopsy was performed on day 5 or 6 followed by vitrification. Genetic testing was done using pre-implantation genetic haplotyping. A total of 60 couples started 70 fresh PGD cycles (mean 1Á2 cycles/couple) and underwent a total of 74 frozen-embryo-transfer (FET) cycles (mean 1Á3 FET/couple). The mean (SD) female age was 33 (4Á4) years and the mean (SD) anti-m€ ullerian hormone level was 22Á9 (2Á8) pmol/l. The cumulative live-birth rate was 54%/PGD cycle started and 63%/couple embarking on PGD. The rate of multiple births was 8%. The cumulative outcome of PGD treatment for prevention of SCD transmission is high and PGD treatment should be offered to all at-risk couples.

show abstract

Public perspectives on the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis

Cited by 25 publications

References 20 publications

High and growing disapproval of sex-selection technology in Australia

High and growing disapproval of sex-selection technology in Australia

Essentially Biased

Cumulative outcome of pre‐implantation genetic diagnosis for sickle cell disease: a 5‐year review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About