调节胎儿性别测定的无创产前检测(NIPT)。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q1 LAW Medical Law Review Pub Date : 2023-11-27 DOI:10.1093/medlaw/fwad014
Michelle Taylor-Sands, Chanelle Warton, Hilary Bowman-Smart
{"title":"调节胎儿性别测定的无创产前检测(NIPT)。","authors":"Michelle Taylor-Sands, Chanelle Warton, Hilary Bowman-Smart","doi":"10.1093/medlaw/fwad014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) can be used to determine the chromosomal sex of the fetus at an early stage in a pregnancy. The use of NIPT for fetal sex determination raises concerns about potential selective termination of pregnancy by prospective parents who desire a child of a particular sex. Although sex selection for medical reasons is generally accepted, non-medical sex selection (NMSS) has been the subject of considerable controversy. In this article, we explore the current regulatory landscape around reproductive genetic testing techniques that may lead to NMSS, both internationally and within Australia. Specifically, we contrast the approach to regulating preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) with the minimal regulation of NIPT in Australia as a case study for reform. We examine ethical concerns raised in relation to NMSS, which form the basis of the current moratorium on the use of PGT for NMSS. We then highlight some key differences between using PGT for NMSS and NIPT for fetal sex determination to determine whether access to the latter should be regulated and, if so, how. We conclude that there is insufficient evidence to restrict access to NIPT for fetal sex determination and, based on our Australian case study, recommend a facilitative approach to regulating NIPT that would support individuals to make informed reproductive decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":49146,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law Review","volume":" ","pages":"521-537"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10681358/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Regulating non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for fetal sex determination.\",\"authors\":\"Michelle Taylor-Sands, Chanelle Warton, Hilary Bowman-Smart\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/medlaw/fwad014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) can be used to determine the chromosomal sex of the fetus at an early stage in a pregnancy. The use of NIPT for fetal sex determination raises concerns about potential selective termination of pregnancy by prospective parents who desire a child of a particular sex. Although sex selection for medical reasons is generally accepted, non-medical sex selection (NMSS) has been the subject of considerable controversy. In this article, we explore the current regulatory landscape around reproductive genetic testing techniques that may lead to NMSS, both internationally and within Australia. Specifically, we contrast the approach to regulating preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) with the minimal regulation of NIPT in Australia as a case study for reform. We examine ethical concerns raised in relation to NMSS, which form the basis of the current moratorium on the use of PGT for NMSS. We then highlight some key differences between using PGT for NMSS and NIPT for fetal sex determination to determine whether access to the latter should be regulated and, if so, how. We conclude that there is insufficient evidence to restrict access to NIPT for fetal sex determination and, based on our Australian case study, recommend a facilitative approach to regulating NIPT that would support individuals to make informed reproductive decisions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Law Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"521-537\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10681358/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwad014\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwad014","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

非侵入性产前检测(NIPT)可用于确定在怀孕早期胎儿的染色体性别。使用NIPT进行胎儿性别鉴定引起了人们的担忧,即那些想要一个特定性别孩子的准父母可能会选择性地终止妊娠。虽然医学原因的性别选择被普遍接受,但非医学性别选择(NMSS)一直是相当有争议的主题。在这篇文章中,我们探讨了目前在国际和澳大利亚可能导致NMSS的生殖基因检测技术的监管格局。具体来说,我们对比的方法来调节胚胎植入前基因检测(PGT)与NIPT的最低限度的监管在澳大利亚作为改革的案例研究。我们研究了与NMSS有关的伦理问题,这些问题构成了目前暂停使用PGT用于NMSS的基础。然后,我们强调了使用PGT进行NMSS和使用NIPT进行胎儿性别确定之间的一些关键差异,以确定是否应该规范后者的使用,如果是,如何规范。我们的结论是,没有足够的证据来限制使用NIPT进行胎儿性别鉴定,并根据我们在澳大利亚的案例研究,建议一种促进方法来规范NIPT,这将支持个人做出明智的生殖决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Regulating non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for fetal sex determination.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) can be used to determine the chromosomal sex of the fetus at an early stage in a pregnancy. The use of NIPT for fetal sex determination raises concerns about potential selective termination of pregnancy by prospective parents who desire a child of a particular sex. Although sex selection for medical reasons is generally accepted, non-medical sex selection (NMSS) has been the subject of considerable controversy. In this article, we explore the current regulatory landscape around reproductive genetic testing techniques that may lead to NMSS, both internationally and within Australia. Specifically, we contrast the approach to regulating preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) with the minimal regulation of NIPT in Australia as a case study for reform. We examine ethical concerns raised in relation to NMSS, which form the basis of the current moratorium on the use of PGT for NMSS. We then highlight some key differences between using PGT for NMSS and NIPT for fetal sex determination to determine whether access to the latter should be regulated and, if so, how. We conclude that there is insufficient evidence to restrict access to NIPT for fetal sex determination and, based on our Australian case study, recommend a facilitative approach to regulating NIPT that would support individuals to make informed reproductive decisions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Law Review
Medical Law Review MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
11.80%
发文量
50
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Law Review is established as an authoritative source of reference for academics, lawyers, legal and medical practitioners, law students, and anyone interested in healthcare and the law. The journal presents articles of international interest which provide thorough analyses and comment on the wide range of topical issues that are fundamental to this expanding area of law. In addition, commentary sections provide in depth explorations of topical aspects of the field.
期刊最新文献
Towards a rights-based approach for disabled women's access to abortion. Addressing the consequences of the corporatization of reproductive medicine. Guy's and St Thomas'-v-Knight [2021] EWHC 25: Dignity in English law. Donor conception, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, choices, and procedural justice: an argument for reform of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Anticipatory declarations in obstetric care: a relational and spatial examination of patient empowerment, institutional impacts and temporal challenges.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1