medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2023, Number 10

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2023; 91 (10)

Shared decision making in pretest counseling at the 11 to 13 weeks ultrasound scan: bibliographic review

Medina-Castro N, Moreno-Sánchez JA, Medina-Castro D, Hernández-Andrade EA, García-Cabrero B, Hincapie-Sánchez J

Language: Spanish
References: 35
Page: 753-761
PDF size: 233.63 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Prenatal diagnosis brings together a group of technologies that focus on the detection of congenital defects or anomalies of genetic and multifactorial origin. Irrespective of the type of test, any prenatal diagnostic technology must be accompanied by pre- and post-test counselling. The ethical underpinning of such counselling is of paramount interest to prenatal medicine and has been the task of several organisations.
Methodology: Retrospective study, searching PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases using the MeSH terms: "pregnancy", "prenatal diagnosis", "genetic counselling", "relational autonomy" and "decision making".
Results: We found 909 references from which we eliminated those older than 20 years of publication, those without full text and those duplicated by searching in dif- ferent databases. In the end, 25 full-text articles were analysed and served as the basis for the literature review.
Conclusions: Ultrasound is currently the main gateway to the world of prenatal diagnosis. The ethical indication and use of any prenatal diagnostic technology prevents harm to the pregnancy as a whole and avoids the need for detailed legal regulation, which currently does not exist in many countries, including our own. Clear ethical guidelines are now available for advice on ultrasound as a prenatal diagnostic technique.


REFERENCES

  1. Cuckle H, Maymon R. Development of prenatal screening-A historical overview. Semin Perinatol 2016; 40 (1): 12-22.doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2015.11.003.

  2. Beta J, Zhang W, Geris S, Kostiv V, Akolekar R. Procedurerelatedrisk of miscarriage following chorionic villus samplingand amniocentesis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019;54 (4): 452-457. doi: 10.1002/uog.20293

  3. Lim KMX, Mahyuddin AP, Gosavi AT, Choolani M. Geneticsin prenatal diagnosis. Singapore Med J 2023; 64 (1): 27-36.doi: 10.4103/singaporemedj.SMJ-2021-433.

  4. International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology;Bilardo CM, Chaoui R, Hyett JA, Kagan KO, KarimJN, Papageorghiou AT, Poon LC, Salomon LJ, Syngelaki A,Nicolaides KH. ISUOG Practice Guidelines (updated): performanceof 11-14-week ultrasound scan. Ultrasound ObstetGynecol 2023; 61 (1): 127-43. doi: 10.1002/uog.26106

  5. Wertz DC, Fletcher GF, Berg K & WHO Human GeneticsProgramme. Review of ethical issues in medical genetics:report of consultants to WHO / DC. Wertz JC. Fletcher, KBerg. World Health Organization, 2003 https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/68512

  6. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics.8th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.

  7. Ville Y. From obstetric ultrasound to ultrasonographicobstetrics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27 (1): 1-5.doi: 10.1002/uog.2690

  8. Mozersky J, Ravitsky V, Rapp R, Michie M, ChandrasekharanS, Allyse M. Toward an Ethically Sensitive Implementationof Noninvasive Prenatal Screening in the Global Context.Hastings Cent Rep 2017; 47 (2): 41-49. doi: 10.1002/hast.690

  9. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A,et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice.J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27 (10): 1361-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6

  10. Swedish National Council on Medical Ethics. Prenataldiagnosis: The Ethics. http://www.smer.gov.se

  11. Montague R. Your Brain Is (Almost Perfect). How we makedecisions. Plume: New York, 2007.

  12. Elwyn G, Gray J, Clarke A. Shared decision making and nondirectivenessin genetic counselling. J Med Genet 2000; 37(2): 135-8. doi: 10.1136/jmg.37.2.135

  13. Resta RG. Complicated shadows: The limitations of autonomyin genetic counseling practice. In Genetic CounselingPractice. 1st ed. New York: Wiley 2020; 9-24 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119529873.ch2

  14. Seavilleklein V. Challenging the rhetoric of choice inprenatal screening. Bioethics 2009; 23 (1): 68-77. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00674.x

  15. Buchanan A, Brock DW, Daniels N, Wikler D. Genética yJusticia. 1ª ed. Madrid: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

  16. Mackenzie C. Relational autonomy, normative authorityand perfectionism. J Social Philosophy 2008; 39 (4): 512-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2008.00440.x

  17. Jara-Ettinger AC, Cárdenas-Conejo A, Huicochea-Montie JC,Araujo-Solís MAJ. The lag of genetic counseling in Mexico.Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2021; 59 (1): 101-105. doi:10.24875/RMIMSS.M21000058

  18. Farrell RM, Pierce M, Collart C, Edmonds BT, Chien E, et al.Making the most of the first prenatal visit: The challengeof expanding prenatal genetic testing options and limitedclinical encounter time. Prenat Diagn 2020; 40 (10): 1265-71. doi: 10.1002/pd.5752

  19. Garegnani LI, Meza N, Rosón-Rodriguez P, Escobar-Liquitay CM, Arancibia M, et al. Patients' participationin government-sponsored guidelines in Latin America: across-sectional study. BMJ Evid Based Med 2022; 27 (1):21-26. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111530

  20. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Noninvasive Prenatal Testing:Ethical Issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/publications/noninvasive-prenataltesting

  21. Holloway K, Simms N, Hayeems RZ, Miller FA. The market innoninvasive prenatal tests and the message to consumers:exploring responsibility. Hastings Center Report 2022; 52:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1329

  22. Sherwin S. Normalizing reproductive technologies andthe implications for autonomy. in: globalizing feministbioethics. 1st ed. Westview Press, 2018; 96-113.

  23. Williams C, Sandall J, Lewando-Hundt G, Heyman B, SpencerK, Grellier R. Women as moral pioneers? Experiencesof first trimester antenatal screening. Soc Sci Med 2005;61 (9): 1983-92. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.004

  24. García E, Timmermans DR, van Leeuwen E. Women's viewson the moral status of nature in the context of prenatalscreening decisions. J Med Ethics 2011; 37 (8): 461-5. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040592

  25. García E, Timmermans DR, van Leeuwen E. Rethinking autonomyin the context of prenatal screening decision-making.Prenat Diagn 2008; 28 (2): 115-20. doi: 10.1002/pd.1920

  26. Gottfredsdóttir H, Sandall J, Björnsdóttir K. This is just whatyou do when you are pregnant': a qualitative study of prospectiveparents in Iceland who accept nuchal translucencyscreening. Midwifery 2009; 25 (6): 711-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2007.12.004

  27. García E, Timmermans DR, van Leeuwen E. Reconsideringprenatal screening: an empirical-ethical approach tounderstand moral dilemmas as a question of personalpreferences. J Med Ethics 2009; 35 (7): 410-4. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.026880

  28. Shea TL. Informed decision making regarding prenatalaneuploidy screening. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs2020; 49 (1): 41-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jogn.2019.11.001

  29. Medina-Castro N, Moreno-Sánchez JA, Moreno-Páez R.Autonomía en el tamizaje prenatal de cromosomopatías.En: Tópicos Selectos de Bioética Vol. 2. México: Tirant LoBlanch. En prensa.

  30. Martínez-Miguélez M. La psicología humanista. Un nuevoparadigma psicológico. México: Trillas, 1999.

  31. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-034-SSA2-2013 Para laprevención y control de los defectos al nacimiento. DOF:24/06/2014

  32. Mayen Molina DG, Grether González P, Aguinaga Ríos M,Baez Reyes M del R, García Cavazos R, Gómez ArteagaGM; Colegio Mexicano de Especialistas en Ginecología yObstetricia. Tamiz genético prenatal: marcadores bioquímicosdel primer y segundo trimestres. Ginecol Obstet Mex2009; 77 (1): S27-S6.

  33. Mayen Molina DG, Baez Reyes M del R, Grether GonzálezP, Aizpuru Akel E, Aguinaga Ríos M, García Cavazos R,Gómez Arteaga GM; Colegio Mexicano de Especialistas enGinecología y Obstetricia. Genetic counseling in perinatalfield. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2009; 77 (1): S1-25.

  34. García Cavazos RJ, Aguinaga Ríos M, Arenas Pérez GA,Mayén Molina DG, Medina Castro D, Baptista GonzálezHA. Tamiz preconcepcional y prenatal para cromosomopatías.En: Síntesis y recomendaciones de la evidenciapara la práctica clínica. Colegio Mexicano de Especialistasen Ginecología, 2019; 138-60. https://doi.org/10.24245/gom.vlibook.3470

  35. Greenhalght T, Hurwitz B. Narrative based medicine in anevidence-based world. Dialogue and Discourse in clinicalpractice. Londres: BMJ Books; 1998.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com