g Kuiper 2008) Issues of (expected) scale figured anew as did t

g. Kuiper 2008). Issues of (expected) scale figured anew as did the notion of the democratic right to make an informed choice (depicted as opposed to a ‘religiously ordained’ morale). Whenever new technological options in prenatal testing become available, debate is called for to discuss the social and ethical ramifications. Especially, the tension between individual choice and the collective effects of creating a society without room for handicaps or illness, as a new form of collective eugenics, reappears. In the light of this tension, Osimertinib ic50 we would like to draw upon our Dutch historical case study to discuss

the role of the government and public debate. Evidently, the role and responsibilities of the government have changed during the years. Instead of GS-9973 manufacturer banning screening that was found to be unsound and was perceived to have negative societal

consequences, the government increasingly has taken up the responsibility to implement new Dactolisib forms of reliable reproductive testing and screening in an ethically sound manner, for instance, by providing adequate information and enabling informed choice, thereby changing the notion of protection. In addition, continuing efforts are necessary to boost the quality of testing and personnel performing the test. It is vital that policy should be in place to ensure standards of care for the handicapped, in order for people to have a real choice of whether to have testing or not, an issue that had already been raised in an earlier Health Orotidine 5′-phosphate decarboxylase Council of the Netherlands (1989) report. In modern democracies, public debate is essential for discussing values and practices implicated by governmental policy. It should be possible to voice a range of arguments for or against screening, and shed light on the mixed blessings and complexities involved (see also Huijer (2009)).

Until recently, both human geneticists and bioethicists have (rightfully) stressed the importance of taking the individual as a focal point when considering genetic testing. Given the recurrent argument of collective eugenics, public debate might be used to reflect on the ramifications of individual choice. Debate has just started on the host of ethical issues involved in whole genome sequencing, including sequencing of foetal DNA. Aside from the difficulty of analyzing and interpreting the data, issues include determining what information to report to parents and the right of the future child not to know its genetic makeup (Health Council of the Netherlands 2010; de Jong et al. 2010). Though this debate still seems confined to small groups of experts, the expected advent of free foetal DNA testing will soon open this debate to a wider audience.

Comments are closed.