↓ Skip to main content

Ethical quandaries around expanded carrier screening in third-party reproduction

Overview of attention for article published in Fertility & Sterility, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Ethical quandaries around expanded carrier screening in third-party reproduction
Published in
Fertility & Sterility, February 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.11.032
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heidi Mertes, Steven R. Lindheim, Guido Pennings

Abstract

Although current screening methods of gamete donors are capable of reducing the incidence of genetic anomalies in donor offspring below general population levels, targeted screening for a large number of conditions (expanded carrier screening or ECS) could be considered as part of the routine selection procedure for gamete donors. There are, however, important drawbacks to its practical implementation. Excluding all carriers of severe recessive monogenic pediatric disorders would disqualify virtually all donors, and other approaches negatively affect cost (and therefore access), present dilemmas in regard to disclosure of genetic findings, and/or overburden the intended parents. In all of the scenarios considered, adequate genetic counseling will be of central importance. Besides looking at benefits and drawbacks of possible ways of implementing ECS, we also examine whether a moral obligation exists to adopt ECS at all and on whose shoulders such an alleged obligation would rest: policymakers, medical staff at fertility clinics, sperm and egg banks, the intended parents? We argue that given the small risk reduction brought about by ECS, the possible negative effects of its implementation, and the absence of widespread preconception carrier screening in the general population, it is inconsistent to argue that there is a moral obligation to perform ECS in the context of donor conception. Finally, implications for the donors are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 15%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Other 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 20 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 26 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 February 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Fertility & Sterility
#9,047
of 9,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#389,408
of 448,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Fertility & Sterility
#61
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 448,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.