Should genes for non-syndromic hearing loss be included in reproductive genetic carrier screening: Views of people with a personal or family experience of deafness.

Many commercial reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) panels include genes associated with non-syndromic hearing loss (NSHL), however little is known about the general acceptability of their inclusion. Although some couples wish to avoid having a deaf child, there are effective interventions and supports available for deafness, and no consensus on whether it is appropriate to reproductively screen NSHL genes. This study explored views of people with personal experience of deafness regarding carrier screening for genes associated with NSHL. We interviewed 27 participants; 14 who identified as deaf and 13 hearing parents of a deaf child. Thematic analysis was undertaken on transcripts of interviews. The findings reveal the complexity of attitudes within these groups. Some vacillated between the wish to support prospective parents' reproductive autonomy and concerns about potential harms, especially the expression of negative messages about deafness and the potential loss of acceptance in society. While some participants felt carrier screening could help prospective parents to prepare for a deaf child, there was little support for reproductive screening and termination of pregnancy. Participants emphasized the need for accurate information about the lived experience of deafness. The majority felt deafness is not as severe as other conditions included in RGCS, and most do not consider deafness as a disability. People with personal experience of deafness have diverse attitudes towards RGCS for deafness informed by their own identify and experience, and many have concerns about how it should be discussed and implemented in a population wide RGCS program.

[1]  A. Archibald,et al.  How should severity be understood in the context of reproductive genetic carrier screening? , 2023, Bioethics.

[2]  W. Dondorp,et al.  Societal implications of expanded universal carrier screening: a scoping review , 2022, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[3]  A. McNeill,et al.  A qualitative interview study of the attitudes toward reproductive options of people with genetic visual loss , 2022, Journal of genetic counseling.

[4]  L. Haverman,et al.  Views of patients and parents of children with genetic disorders on population‐based expanded carrier screening , 2022, Prenatal diagnosis.

[5]  M. Delatycki,et al.  The views of people with a lived experience of deafness and the general public regarding genetic testing for deafness in the reproductive setting: A systematic review. , 2022, Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics.

[6]  F. Boardman,et al.  What is a ‘serious’ genetic condition? The perceptions of people living with genetic conditions , 2021, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[7]  A. Archibald,et al.  Ethical considerations in gene selection for reproductive carrier screening , 2021, Human Genetics.

[8]  N. Leach,et al.  Screening for autosomal recessive and X-linked conditions during pregnancy and preconception: a practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) , 2021, Genetics in Medicine.

[9]  A. Newson,et al.  Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening: From the Clinic to the Population , 2021, Public health ethics.

[10]  L. Haverman,et al.  Preconception expanded carrier screening: a focus group study with relatives of mucopolysaccharidosis type III patients and the general population , 2021, Journal of Community Genetics.

[11]  F. Boardman Attitudes toward population screening among people living with fragile X syndrome in the UK: ‘I wouldn’t wish him away, I’d just wish his fragile X syndrome away’ , 2020, Journal of genetic counseling.

[12]  M. Delatycki,et al.  Which types of conditions should be included in reproductive genetic carrier screening?: Views of parents of children with a genetic condition. , 2020, European journal of medical genetics.

[13]  N. Laing,et al.  Gene selection for the Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project (“Mackenzie’s Mission”) , 2020, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[14]  L. Haverman,et al.  Attitudes of relatives of mucopolysaccharidosis type III patients toward preconception expanded carrier screening , 2020, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[15]  F. Boardman Whose life is worth preserving? Disabled people and the expressivist objection to neonatology , 2020, Acta paediatrica.

[16]  A. McNeill,et al.  Views of adults with 22q11 deletion syndrome on reproductive choices , 2020, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[17]  V. Braun,et al.  Novel insights into patients' life-worlds: the value of qualitative research. , 2019, The lancet. Psychiatry.

[18]  B. Knoppers,et al.  The ‘serious’ factor in germline modification , 2019, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[19]  K. Ormond,et al.  Attitudes of people with inherited retinal conditions toward gene editing technology , 2019, Molecular genetics & genomic medicine.

[20]  M. Hansson,et al.  Values and value conflicts in implementation and use of preconception expanded carrier screening - an expert interview study , 2019, BMC Medical Ethics.

[21]  K. Abbott,et al.  Feasibility of couple-based expanded carrier screening offered by general practitioners , 2019, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[22]  F. Boardman,et al.  “I didn’t take it too seriously because I’d just never heard of it”: Experiential knowledge and genetic screening for thalassaemia in the UK , 2018, Journal of genetic counseling.

[23]  M. Hansson,et al.  “A perfect society”— Swedish policymakers’ ethical and social views on preconception expanded carrier screening , 2018, Journal of Community Genetics.

[24]  F. Boardman,et al.  How do genetically disabled adults view selective reproduction? Impairment, identity, and genetic screening , 2018, Molecular genetics & genomic medicine.

[25]  P. Borry,et al.  A systematic analysis of online marketing materials used by providers of expanded carrier screening , 2018, Genetics in Medicine.

[26]  D. Chitayat,et al.  Disability Experiences and Perspectives Regarding Reproductive Decisions, Parenting, and the Utility of Genetic Services: a Qualitative Study , 2018, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[27]  F. Griffiths,et al.  The role of experiential knowledge within attitudes towards genetic carrier screening: A comparison of people with and without experience of spinal muscular atrophy , 2017, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[28]  A. Clarke,et al.  Outcomes of an International Workshop on Preconception Expanded Carrier Screening: Some Considerations for Governments , 2017, Front. Public Health.

[29]  I. Haque,et al.  Clinical Utility of Expanded Carrier Screening: Reproductive Behaviors of At-Risk Couples , 2016, bioRxiv.

[30]  A. Höglund,et al.  Swedish healthcare providers’ perceptions of preconception expanded carrier screening (ECS)—a qualitative study , 2016, Journal of Community Genetics.

[31]  H. Kayserili,et al.  Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening , 2016, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[32]  A. Paepe,et al.  Attitudes of cystic fibrosis patients and parents toward carrier screening and related reproductive issues , 2015, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[33]  Mary E Norton,et al.  Expanded carrier screening in reproductive medicine-points to consider: a joint statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Society of Genetic Counselors, Perinatal Quality Foundation, and Society for Maternal-Feta , 2015, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[34]  I. Haque,et al.  Systematic Classification of Disease Severity for Evaluation of Expanded Carrier Screening Panels , 2014, PloS one.

[35]  F. Boardman Experiential knowledge of disability, impairment and illness: The reproductive decisions of families genetically at risk , 2014, Health.

[36]  Bridget C. O’Brien,et al.  Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations , 2014, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[37]  F. Boardman The expressivist objection to prenatal testing: the experiences of families living with genetic disease. , 2014, Social science & medicine.

[38]  M. Aitken,et al.  “Did you find that out in time?”: New life trajectories of parents who choose to continue a pregnancy where a genetic disorder is diagnosed or likely , 2012, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[39]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Are they really that happy? Exploring scale recalibration in estimates of well-being. , 2008, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[40]  I. Krantz,et al.  Parental narratives on genetic testing for children with hearing loss: A qualitative inquiry , 2007, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[41]  L. Gillam,et al.  Attitudes to Genetic Testing for Deafness: The Importance of Informed Choice , 2006, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[42]  P. Ladd Deafhood: A concept stressing possibilities, not deficits , 2005 .

[43]  Norbert Schwarz,et al.  Misimagining the unimaginable: the disability paradox and health care decision making. , 2005, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[44]  H. Lane Ethnicity, ethics, and the deaf-world. , 2005, Journal of deaf studies and deaf education.

[45]  Janet K. Williams,et al.  Toward a biopsychosocial model for 21st-century genetics. , 2005, Family process.

[46]  Steven D. Edwards Disability, identity and the “expressivist objection” , 2004, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[47]  B. Knoppers,et al.  Serious genetic disorders: can or should they be defined? , 2002, American journal of medical genetics.

[48]  E. Parens,et al.  Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: reflections and recommendations. , 1999, Mental retardation and developmental disabilities research reviews.

[49]  E. Parens,et al.  The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing. Reflections and Recommendations. , 1999, The Hastings Center report.

[50]  G. Albrecht,et al.  The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds. , 1999, Social science & medicine.

[51]  A. De Paepe,et al.  Attitudes of European Geneticists Regarding Expanded Carrier Screening , 2017, Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN.

[52]  M. Delatycki,et al.  Clinical ethics: Genetic selection for deafness: the views of hearing children of deaf adults , 2009 .

[53]  P. Liamputtong Qualitative data analysis: conceptual and practical considerations. , 2009, Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals.

[54]  V. Braun,et al.  Please Scroll down for Article Qualitative Research in Psychology Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology , 2022 .