Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Apr;3(2):79-89.
doi: 10.1007/s12687-011-0063-z. Epub 2011 Aug 30.

Genetic screening and democracy: lessons from debating genetic screening criteria in the Netherlands

Affiliations

Genetic screening and democracy: lessons from debating genetic screening criteria in the Netherlands

Carla Geertruida van El et al. J Community Genet. 2012 Apr.

Abstract

Recent decades have witnessed increasing possibilities for genetic testing and screening. In clinical genetics, the doctor's office defined a secluded space for discussion of sensitive reproductive options in cases of elevated risk for genetic disorders in individuals or their offspring. When prenatal screening for all pregnant women became conceivable, the potential increase in scale made social and ethical concerns relevant for the whole of society. Whereas genetic testing in clinical genetic practice was widely accepted, prenatal screening at a population level met with unease. Concerns were raised regarding social pressure to screen: the sum of individual choice might result in a 'collective eugenics'. The government's involvement also raised suspicion: actively offering screening evoked associations with eugenic population policies from the first half of the 20th century. By reconstructing elements of policy and public debate on prenatal screening in the Netherlands from the past 30 years, this article discusses how the government has gradually changed its role in balancing the interest of the individual and the collective on genetic reproductive issues. Against a background of increasing knowledge about and demand for prenatal screening among the population, governmental policy changed from focusing on protection by banning screening toward facilitating screening in a careful and ethically sound way by providing adequate information, decision aids and quality assessment instruments. In the meanwhile, invigorating democracy in public debate may entail discussing concepts of 'the good life' in relation to living with or without impairments and dealing with genetic information about oneself or one's offspring.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Borry P, Cornel MC, Howard HC. Where are you going, where have you been: a recent history of the direct-to-consumer genetic testing market. J Comm Genet. 2010;2010:101–106. doi: 10.1007/s12687-010-0023-z. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. BOSK. Brief van mevr. KA Kruidenier-Bron, voorzitter BOSK aan de Staatssecretaris van Welzijn, Volksgezondheid en Cultuur, drs H.J. Simons [Letter from Mrs KA Kruidenier-Bron, chair BOSK, to the State Secretary of Welfare, Health Care and Culture, HJ Simons ] August 1992
    1. Chiu RWK, Akolekar R, Zheng YWL, et al. Non-invasive prenatal assessment of trisomy 21 by multiplexed maternal plasma DNA sequencing: large scale validity study. Br Med J. 2011;342:c7401. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c7401. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Committee Obstetrics [Commissie Verloskunde] (2003) Verloskundig Vademecum 2003 [Obstetric Vademecum 2003]. College voor Zorgverzekeringen, Diemen
    1. Committee of Ministers (1992) On genetic testing and screening for health care purposes. Recommendation. Council of Europe. No. R (92) 3. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources