Negotiating severity behind the scenes: prenatal testing in Germany.

Foetal-related severity is a key concept in policy and legislation relating to access to both reproductive technologies and selective abortions in many countries around the world, but not in Germany. This study sheds light on how 'severity' in the context of prenatal testing is understood and negotiated within the particular socio-cultural and legal context of Germany, where 'severity' relating to foetal clinical findings neither counts as a justification to implement population prenatal screening programs, nor as a legal ground to terminate pregnancy. This study explores the views of women who undergo prenatal testing, as well as of professionals who encounter them, through semi-structured interviews. It showcases how they frame severity and questions whether the existing legal and regulatory framework relating to prenatal testing and termination of pregnancy addresses their concerns and needs regarding reproductive decision-making. The interviews (n = 27) reveal that despite it being legally outside the explicit reasons for testing and termination of pregnancy, both women and professionals negotiate severity behind the scenes. Their interpretation of severity is highly context-dependent and relies on clinical, social and familial facets. Their perceptions of severity guide them in their handling of and decision-making around pregnancy management. Acknowledging the personal nature of severity assessment and providing professional or legal guidance which explicitly mentions foetal anomaly as a legitimate factor in pregnancy management could provide healthcare professionals and patients with the room needed to manage the pregnancy favourably.

Supporting patient decision-making in non-invasive prenatal testing: a comparative study of professional values and practices in England and France.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), which can screen for aneuploidies such as trisomy 21, is being implemented in several public healthcare systems across Europe. Comprehensive communication and information have been highlighted in the literature as important elements in supporting women's reproductive decision-making and addressing relevant ethical concerns such as routinisation. Countries such as England and France are adopting broadly similar implementation models, offering NIPT for pregnancies with high aneuploidy probability. However, we do not have a deeper understanding of how professionals' counselling values and practices may differ between these contexts. METHODS: In this paper, we explore how professionals in England and France support patient decision-making in the provision of NIPT and critically compare professional practices and values. We draw on data from semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Both English and French professionals emphasised values relating to patient choice and consent. However, understandings and application of these values into the practice of NIPT provision differed. English interviewees placed a stronger emphasis on interpreting and describing the process of counselling patients and clinical care through a "principle" lens. Their focus was on non-directiveness, standardisation, and the healthcare professional as "decision-facilitator" for patients. French interviewees described their approach through a "procedural" lens. Their focus was on formal consent, information, and the healthcare professional as "information-giver". Both English and French professionals indicated that insufficient resources were a key barrier in effectively translating their values into practice. CONCLUSION: Our findings illustrate that supporting patient choice in the provision of NIPT may be held as an important value in common on a surface level, but can be understood and translated into practice in different ways. Our findings can guide further research and beneficially inform practice and policy around NIPT provision.

Women's preferences for NIPT as a first-line test in England and France: Challenges for genetic counseling practices.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is provided in the private and public sectors worldwide as a first- or second-tier test. In England and France, NIPT is fully funded and offered as a contingent strategy with different probability cut-offs (1:150 and 1:1000). These different approaches to define the target population for NIPT have implications for how women experience their antenatal care. The paper explores and compares the perceptions and difficulties of women in England and France who took NIPT as a second-tier screening test. It is based on a semi-structured qualitative interview study with 17 women in England and France conducted between September 2021 and May 2022. The interviews were cross-analyzed using thematic analysis. Our findings show that most women express a preference for the offer of NIPT as a first-line screening test. Some issues with the contingent model, related to the access to information and termination of pregnancy (TOP), the disparities of NIPT uptake, and risks of generating anxiety with combined first-trimester screening (cFTS), could be addressed by a universal strategy for T21, T13, and T18. Nevertheless, this strategy could present some challenges for genetic counseling due to: women's understanding and expectations of NIPT; adequate information and counseling about the scope and limits of NIPT; concerns about the routinization of NIPT in the first-line offer; limitations and uncertainties associated with the provision of expanded NIPT in France; the remaining importance of other screening tests; and associated costs.

Solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from a nine-country interview study in Europe.

Calls for solidarity have been an ubiquitous feature in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we know little about how people have thought of and practised solidarity in their everyday lives since the beginning of the pandemic. What role does solidarity play in people's lives, how does it relate to COVID-19 public health measures and how has it changed in different phases of the pandemic? Situated within the medical humanities at the intersection of philosophy, bioethics, social sciences and policy studies, this article explores how the practice-based understanding of solidarity formulated by Prainsack and Buyx helps shed light on these questions. Drawing on 643 qualitative interviews carried out in two phases (April-May 2020 and October 2020) in nine European countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, German-speaking Switzerland and the UK), the data show that interpersonal acts of solidarity are important, but that they are not sustainable without consistent support at the institutional level. As the pandemic progressed, respondents expressed a longing for more institutionalised forms of solidarity. We argue that the medical humanities have much to gain from directing their attention to individual health issues, and to collective experiences of health or illness. The analysis of experiences through a collective lens such as solidarity offers unique insights to understandings of the individual and the collective. We propose three essential advances for research in the medical humanities that can help uncover collective experiences of disease and health crises: (1) an empirical and practice-oriented approach alongside more normative approaches; (2) the confidence to make recommendations for practice and policymaking and (3) the pursuit of cross-national and multidisciplinary research collaborations.

Non-invasive prenatal testing in Germany: a unique ethical and policy landscape.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been available commercially in Europe since approximately 2012. Currently, many countries are in the process of integrating NIPT into their publicly funded healthcare systems to screen for chromosomal aneuploidies such as trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), with a variety of implementation models. In 2019, the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), which plays a significant role in overseeing healthcare decisions in Germany, recommended that NIPT be reimbursed through public insurance. Following this recommendation, NIPT will be offered on a case-by-case basis, when a pregnant woman, after being counselled, makes an informed decision that the test is necessary in her personal situation. This model differs significantly from many other European countries, where NIPT is being implemented either as a first-tier screening offer available for all pregnancies, or a contingent screen for those with a high probability of foetal aneuploidy (with varying probability cut-offs). In this paper we examine how this unique approach to implementing NIPT in Germany is produced by an ethical and policy landscape resulting from a distinctive cultural and historical context with a significant influence on healthcare decision-making. Due in part to the specific legal and regulatory environment, as well as strong objections from various stakeholders, Germany did not implement NIPT as a first-tier screen. However, as Germany does not currently publicly fund as standard other forms of prenatal aneuploidy screening (such as combined first trimester screening), neither can it be implemented as a screen contingent on specific probability cut-offs. We discuss how German policy reflects the echoes of the past shaping approaches to new biotechnologies, and the implications of this unique model for implementing NIPT in a public healthcare system.

Preserving women's reproductive autonomy while promoting the rights of people with disabilities?: the case of Heidi Crowter and Maire Lea-Wilson in the light of NIPT debates in England, France and Germany.

On July 2021, the UK High Court of Justice heard the Case CO/2066/2020 on the application of Heidi Crowter who lives with Down's syndrome, and Máire Lea-Wilson whose son Aidan has Down's syndrome. Crowter and Lea-Wilson, with the support of the disability rights campaign, 'Don't Screen Us Out', have been taking legal action against the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (the UK Government) for a review of the 1967 Abortion Act: the removal of section 1(1)(d) making termination of pregnancy lawful for 'severe' fetal indications detected after 24 weeks' gestation. On 23 September 2021, the High Court dismissed the claim. This action came at a time when non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) was introduced into the NHS England Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme for the trisomies 21, 13 and 18. The implementation of NIPT has been heavily criticised, in particular by 'Don't Screen Us Out' campaigners, for increasing fetal selection and discrimination of people living with disabilities. The case of Crowter and Lea-Wilson echoes debates in other European countries such as in France and Germany, where the introduction of NIPT in the public healthcare system has provoked equally vehement public reactions and discussions. The comparison between these three countries allows contextualising the public discourses around NIPT and the ground for termination of pregnancy in relation to different socio-cultural and political contexts. We examine how each country, and particularly England, deals with the conflict between the principles of promoting the rights of people living with disabilities and preserving women's reproductive autonomy.

Health professionals and scientists' views on genome-wide NIPT in the French public health system: Critical analysis of the ethical issues raised by prenatal genomics.

In France, since January 2020, laboratories have started to make available genome-wide Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (GW-NIPT) beyond the three common trisomies (T21, T13 and T18) at the same cost as standard NIPT. With the possible margins for interpretation of the legal framework and in the absence of clear and updated guidelines, health professionals are left with questions about which type of screening offer may be clinically responsible, morally appropriate, and, at the same time, respectful of women's values and ability to make autonomous choices. The aim of this study is to provide an analysis and understanding of the challenging dimensions of clinical practices in the context of evolving scientific knowledge and techniques in prenatal genomics. In this article, we develop a critical analysis of the arguments and concerns that emerge around the offer of expanded NIPT and are discussed by health professionals and scientists. To achieve this, we conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 17 health professionals and scientists from September 2021 to February 2022 and a comprehensive literature review (regulatory, scientific, medical, institutional sources). The results of our empirical research highlight the importance of addressing ethical issues related to the differing quality of counselling, the complexity of achieving informed consent, and the avoidance of harm to pregnant women in the feedback of findings beyond T21, T18 and T13. If there is an increase in the provision of GW-NIPT within the French public health system, it will be essential to promote medical practices that respect reproductive choices of women, support their autonomous decision and their understanding of the limitations and uncertainties associated with GW screening. Further research is required to provide an insight into women's perceptions in order to refine our analysis from the patients' perspective.

Democratic research: Setting up a research commons for a qualitative, comparative, longitudinal interview study during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The sudden and dramatic advent of the COVID-19 pandemic led to urgent demands for timely, relevant, yet rigorous research. This paper discusses the origin, design, and execution of the SolPan research commons, a large-scale, international, comparative, qualitative research project that sought to respond to the need for knowledge among researchers and policymakers in times of crisis. The form of organization as a research commons is characterized by an underlying solidaristic attitude of its members and its intrinsic organizational features in which research data and knowledge in the study is shared and jointly owned. As such, the project is peer-governed, rooted in (idealist) social values of academia, and aims at providing tools and benefits for its members. In this paper, we discuss challenges and solutions for qualitative studies that seek to operate as research commons.

Normative positions towards COVID-19 contact-tracing apps: findings from a large-scale qualitative study in nine European countries.

Mobile applications for digital contact tracing have been developed and introduced around the world in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Proposed as a tool to support 'traditional' forms of contact-tracing carried out to monitor contagion, these apps have triggered an intense debate with respect to their legal and ethical permissibility, social desirability and general feasibility. Based on a large-scale study including qualitative data from 349 interviews conducted in nine European countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, German-speaking Switzerland, the United Kingdom), this paper shows that the binary framing often found in surveys and polls, which contrasts privacy concerns with the usefulness of these interventions for public health, does not capture the depth, breadth, and nuances of people's positions towards COVID-19 contact-tracing apps. The paper provides a detailed account of how people arrive at certain normative positions by analysing the argumentative patterns, tropes and (moral) repertoires underpinning people's perspectives on digital contact-tracing. Specifically, we identified a spectrum comprising five normative positions towards the use of COVID-19 contact-tracing apps: opposition, scepticism of feasibility, pondered deliberation, resignation, and support. We describe these stances and analyse the diversity of assumptions and values that underlie the normative orientations of our interviewees. We conclude by arguing that policy attempts to develop and implement these and other digital responses to the pandemic should move beyond the reiteration of binary framings, and instead cater to the variety of values, concerns and expectations that citizens voice in discussions about these types of public health interventions.

The ethical landscape(s) of non-invasive prenatal testing in England, France and Germany: findings from a comparative literature review.

Since 2019, England, France and Germany have started offering NIPT as a publicly funded second-tier test for common chromosomal aneuploidies (trisomy 21, 18 and/or 13). Despite these benefits, the introduction of NIPT into routine prenatal care also raises a number of ethical concerns. In this paper, we analyse how these issues are discussed differently across countries, echoing the different socio-political particularities and value-systems that shape the use and regulation of NIPT in a specific country. The international comparison between England, France and Germany shows how each country defines the principle of reproductive autonomy and weighs it against other principles and values, such as, human dignity, disability rights and the duty of care of health professionals. In terms of methodology, our literature review focuses on arguments and regulations of prenatal testing and reproductive choices (specifically on NIPT), through the investigation of regulatory, parliamentary, scientific, medical, association, institutional and media sources. The comparative review helps to better understand ethical questions discussed with regard to NIPT, and, more broadly, to prenatal genomic testing, and the limits associated with reproductive autonomy in the three countries studied. Whereas reproductive autonomy is valued in each country, it is understood and implemented differently depending on the socio-cultural context, and on what other principles are evoked and how they are defined.

The ethics of genomic medicine: redefining values and norms in the UK and France.

This paper presents a joint position of the UK-France Genomics and Ethics Network (UK-FR GENE), which has been set up to reflect on the ethical and social issues arising from the integration of genomics into routine clinical care in the UK and France. In 2018, the two countries announced enhanced cooperation between their national strategies, Genomics England and Plan France Médecine Génomique 2025, which offers a unique opportunity to study the impact of genomic medicine and relevant policies in different national contexts. The paper provides first insights into the two national strategies and the norms, values and principles at stake in each country. It discusses the impact of genomic medicine on established relationships and existing regulations, and examines its effects on solidarity and trust in public healthcare systems. Finally, it uses the social contract as an analytical lens to explore and redefine the balance between individual rights and collective duties in the context of genomic medicine. This paper leads to three key observations: (1) despite each country's strategy being at a different stage of implementation, the two countries face similar ethical issues; (2) each country tries to solve these issues by (re-)defining individual rights and collective duties in its own way; (3) the social contract presents a useful tool to analyse the ways the UK and France address the ethical challenges raised by genomics. This overview lays the groundwork for future in-depth comparison, and drive collaborative research, between the UK and France.

Mixed-methods evaluation of the NHS Genomic Medicine Service for paediatric rare diseases: study protocol.

Background: A new nationally commissioned NHS England Genomic Medicine Service (GMS) was recently established to deliver genomic testing with equity of access for patients affected by rare diseases and cancer. The overarching aim of this research is to evaluate the implementation of the GMS during its early years, identify barriers and enablers to successful implementation, and provide recommendations for practice. The focus will be on the use of genomic testing for paediatric rare diseases. Methods: This will be a four-year mixed-methods research programme using clinic observations, interviews and surveys. Study 1 consists of qualitative interviews with designers/implementers of the GMS in Year 1 of the research programme, along with documentary analysis to understand the intended outcomes for the Service. These will be revisited in Year 4 to compare intended outcomes with what happened in practice, and to identify barriers and facilitators that were encountered along the way. Study 2 consists of clinic observations (pre-test counselling and results disclosure) to examine the interaction between health professionals and parents, along with follow-up interviews with both after each observation. Study 3 consists of a longitudinal survey with parents at two timepoints (time of testing and 12 months post-results) along with follow-up interviews, to examine parent-reported experiences and outcomes. Study 4 consists of qualitative interviews and a cross-sectional survey with medical specialists to identify preparedness, facilitators and challenges to mainstreaming genomic testing. The use of theory-based and pre-specified constructs will help generalise the findings and enable integration across the various sub-studies. Dissemination: We will disseminate our results to policymakers as findings emerge, so any suggested changes to service provision can be considered in a timely manner. A workshop with key stakeholders will be held in Year 4 to develop and agree a set of recommendations for practice.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Genome sequencing (where a person's entire genetic code is mapped) is set to dramatically transform patient care and medical outcomes. Recently, genome sequencing was introduced as part of routine clinical care in the NHS, through the Genomic Medicine Service (GMS). The aim of this research is to understand how genome sequencing is being delivered in the first few years of the Service, in particular what the barriers and enablers are to successful delivery. The focus of the study will be the use of genome sequencing for children with undiagnosed conditions. STUDY DESIGN: This is a four-year study in which we will conduct: observations of clinic appointments; interviews with policy makers and health professionals designing and implementing the new service; and surveys/interviews with parents of patients undergoing genomic testing. By the end of this study we will have: - a better understanding of the intended vs actual outcomes of the GMS,- insights into what happens during clinical encounters,- understand what the entire testing process is like for parents from being offered genomic testing to receiving their results and beyond, including the clinical as well as emotional and practical outcomes, and- understand how healthcare professionals feel about delivering the GMS, particularly those that are non-genetic specialists, including how prepared they feel to deliver genomic testing. Patient and public involvement: Parents of children who have been through the testing process have helped us design this study. They have inputted into surveys and topic guides, and will be involved throughout the study as members of the advisory team so that we can ensure the findings are used to improve the quality of care patients and families receive. DISSEMINATION: The findings from this research will be shared with organisations such as NHS England and NHS Improvement so that recommendations can be implemented swiftly.

Predictive Prenatal Diagnosis for Infantile-onset Inflammatory Bowel Disease Because of Interleukin-10 Signalling Defects.

OBJECTIVES: Advances in genetic technologies provide opportunities for patient care and ethical challenges. Clinical care of patients with rare Mendelian disorders is often at the forefront of those developments. Whereas in classical polygenic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), the predictive value of genetic variants is very low, predictive prenatal genetic diagnosis can inform families at high risk of severe genetic disorders. Patients with IL-10 signalling defects because of pathogenic variants in IL10RA, Il10RB, and IL10 develop severe infantile onset inflammatory bowel disease that is completely penetrant and has a high morbidity and substantial mortality despite treatment. METHODS: We performed a survey among tertiary specialist paediatric centers of 10 countries on the utilization of predictive prenatal genetic diagnosis in IL-10 signalling defects. We retrospectively report prenatal genetics in a series of 8 families. RESULTS: International variation in legislation, guidelines, expert opinion, as well as cultural and religious background of families and clinicians results in variable utilization of preimplantation and prenatal genetic testing for IL-10 signalling defects. Eleven referrals for prenatal diagnosis for IL-10 signalling defects were identified across 4 countries. We report on 8 families who underwent prenatal preimplantation monogenic testing after in vitro fertilization (n = 2) and/or by amniocentesis/chorion villus sampling (n = 6). A genetic diagnosis was established in 1 foetus and excluded in 7 foetuses (all IL10RA variants). CONCLUSIONS: Prenatal genetic testing for IL10R-defects is feasible, yet the legal and ethical considerations are complex and controversial. In some countries, predictive genetics for IL-10-related signalling defects is entering clinical practice.

Sharing whilst caring: solidarity and public trust in a data-driven healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, the solidaristic character of the NHS makes it one of the most trusted public institutions. In recent years, the introduction of data-driven technologies in healthcare has opened up the space for collaborations with private digital companies seeking access to patient data. However, these collaborations appear to challenge the public's trust in the. MAIN TEXT: In this paper we explore how the opening of the healthcare sector to private digital companies challenges the existing social contract and the NHS's solidaristic character, and impacts on public trust. We start by critically discussing different examples of partnerships between the NHS and private companies that collect and use data. We then analyse the relationship between trust and solidarity, and investigate how this relationship changes in the context of digital companies entering the healthcare system. Finally, we show ways for the NHS to maintain public trust by putting in place a solidarity grounded partnership model with companies seeking to access patient data. Such a model would need to serve collective interests through, for example, securing preferential access to goods and services, providing health benefits, and monitoring data access. CONCLUSION: A solidarity grounded partnership model will help establish a social contract or licence that responds to the public's expectations and to principles of a solidaristic healthcare system.

The right to a self-determined death as expression of the right to freedom of personal development: The German Constitutional Court takes a clear stand on assisted suicide.

On 26 February 2020, the German Constitutional Court rejected a law from 2015 that prohibited any form of 'business-like' assisted suicide as unconstitutional. The landmark ruling of the highest federal court emphasised the high priority given to the rights of autonomy and free personal development, both of which constitute the principle of human dignity, the first principle of the German constitution. The ruling echoes particularities of post-war Germany's end-of-life debate focusing on patient self-determination while rejecting any discussion of active assistance to die through a lethal injection administered by a doctor. This brief report discusses the ruling in the light of the broader sociopolitical and historical context of the German end-of-life debate.