Including ethical considerations in models for first-trimester screening for pre-eclampsia

Abstract

Recent efforts to develop reliable and efficient early pregnancy screening programmes for pre-eclampsia have focused on combining clinical, biochemical and biophysical markers. The same model has been used for first-trimester screening for fetal aneuploidies i.e. prenatal diagnosis (PD), which is routinely offered to all pregnant women in many developed countries. Some studies suggest combining PD and pre-eclampsia screening, so women can be offered testing for a number of conditions at the same clinical visit. A combination of these tests may be practical in terms of saving time and resources; however, the combination raises ethical issues. First-trimester PD and pre-eclampsia screening entail qualitative differences which alter the requirements for disclosure, non-directedness and consent with regard to the informed consent process. This article explores the differences related to the ethical issues raised by PD and pre-eclampsia in order to elucidate which factors are relevant to deciding the type of information and consent required in each context from the perspective of the ethical principles of beneficence and autonomy. Furthermore, it argues that ensuring respect for patient autonomy is context dependent and, consequently, pre-eclampsia screening and PD should be performed independently of one another.Pre-eclampsia is a complication of pregnancy that threatens the health of both mother and baby. It has recently been discovered that aspirin is an effective treatment of pre-eclampsia, but only if the mother starts taking aspirin before the 12th week of pregnancy. Presently, much research into the development of a method of screening for pre-eclampsia, similar to that currently used to detect Down’s syndrome during pregnancy, is underway. Some studies have suggested combining the Down’s syndrome and pre-eclampsia screening tests during the first trimester of pregnancy. There are good reasons for this as the time frame for testing is the same and some of the same components can be used in both tests. However, in this paper, we analyse the types of risk and benefits associated with both tests and we find that the type of information required for patients to give consent, and the type of consent required (written, verbal or implicit), are not the same. We find it problematic to combine these tests, and we recommend performing each test independently of the other.