Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: advancing technology, soft markers for fetal chromosomal aberrations, and unacknowledged ethical dilemmas
Fetal ultrasound screening has become routine practice in many western countries. During the last decade, such screening has led to frequent situations characterised by clinical uncertainty due to the disclosure of soft markers in the unborn child. Soft markers are minor anatomical variations indicating a somewhat increased likelihood that the fetus has a chromosomal aberration, most frequently trisomy 21 (Down syndrome). This paper presents the results of a comprehensive literature search of the National Library of Medicine with emphasis on the chronological development of scientific knowledge in relation to soft markers and the link between advancing imaging technology and clinical counselling dilemmas. An analysis of the literature makes evident that many ultrasound examiners have counselled individual pregnant women on the basis of insufficient data. Moral dilemmas have thus emerged as a direct result of advancing medical technology, and healthy fetal lives prove to have been lost due to invasive diagnostic testing aimed at resolving clinical uncertainty. Ultrasound examiners have warned against a policy of disclosing all findings of soft markers to expectant parents, but no exploration of experiential aspects linked to the disclosure of fetal soft markers has yet been published in the medical literature. The emotional reactions of mothers are important to consider given their potential impact on the biological development of the fetus. In conclusion, this paper stresses the need for paying close attention to the crucial distinction between technology development and technology implementation in relation to prenatal testing. Furthermore, it provides strong arguments for scrutinising the interface between prenatal testing and human experience.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 56 (2003)
Issue (Month): 10 (May)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:10:p:2045-2057. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.