Prenatal Tarama ve Teşhis Prosedürlerinin Gebe Kadınlar, Engelliler ve Toplum Üzerindeki Olası Etkilerine Dair Normatif Bir Değerlendirme

Year 2018, Volume: 23 Issue: 2, 111 - 120, 20.05.2018

Maide Barış , İlhan İlkılıç

https://doi.org/10.21673/anadoluklin.371881

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Prenatal tarama ve teşhis prosedürleri fetüsün sağlığı ile ilgili in utero bilgi edinmeyi amaçlayan ve sağlayan uygulamalardır. Bu prosedürler kimi zaman gebe kadın, kimi zaman da toplum için yararlı oldukları argümanıyla savunulmakta ve desteklenmektedir. Bu çalışmada prenatal testlerin kadınlar, engelliler ve toplum üzerindeki olası etkilerine dair normatif bir analiz sunulacak, ardından bunların kimin yararına ya da kimin hakkı olarak uygulandığı sorusuna cevap aranacaktır. 

Keywords

Prenatal tarama, Prenatal teşhis, Etik argümantasyon, Normatif analiz

A NORMATİVE ASSESSMENT ON POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF PRENATAL TESTS ON PREGNANT WOMEN, THE DISABLED, AND THE SOCIETY

Abstract

Prenatal testing and diagnostic procedures are a variety of intervention that aim to provide and do provide in utero information about the health of the fetus. These procedures are supported and argued for on grounds that they are beneficent occasionally for the pregnant woman or the society. This study presents a normative analysis on the possible effects of prenatal testing on women, the disabled, and the society, subsequently followed by an inquiry as to whose interests or rights provide the justificatory basis for such intervention. 

Keywords

Prenatal screening, Prenatal diagnosis, Ethical argumentation, Normative analysis

References

• 1. Williams C, Alderson P, Farsides B. Is nondirectiveness possible within the context of antenatal screening and testing? Social science & medicine. 2002;54(3):339-47.
• 2. De Graaf IM, Tijmstra T, Bleker OP, Van Lith JM. Womens' preference in Down syndrome screening. Prenatal diagnosis. 2002;22(7):624-9.
• 3. Green JM, Statham H, Snowdon C. Women's knowledge of prenatal screening tests. 1: Relationships with hospital screening policy and demographic factors. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology. 1993;11(1):11-20.
• 4. Karakuş R. Gebelerin İkili ya da Üçlü Testler Hakkındaki Bilgi Düzeyinin Araştırılması. Jinekoloji-Obstetrik ve Neonatoloji Tıp Dergisi. 2015;12(5).
• 5. Ergün P, Köken GN, Coşar E, Şahin FK, Arıöz DT, Yılmazer M. Gebelerin Üçlü Tarama Testi ve Gebelikte Yapılan Diğer Testler Hakkındaki Bilgi Düzeyinin Ölçülmesi. TAF Preventive Medicine Bulletin. 2011;10(4).
• 6. West R. From choice to reproductive justice: de-constitutionalizing abortion rights. The Yale Law Journal. 2009:1394-432.
• 7. Garcia E, Timmermans DR, van Leeuwen E. Rethinking autonomy in the context of prenatal screening decision-making. Prenat Diagn. 2008;28(2):115-20.
• 8. Alderson P. Prenatal screening, ethics and Down’s syndrome: A literature review. Nursing Ethics. 2001;8(4):360-74.
• 9. Alderson P. Prenatal counselling and images of disability. In: Dickenson D, editor. Ethical issues in maternal-fetal medicine: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
• 10. McDonagh E. Models of motherhood in the abortion debate: self-sacrifice versus self-defence. In: Dickenson D, editor. Ethical issues in maternal-fetal medicine: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
• 11. Alderson P. Down's syndrome: cost, quality and value of life. Social Science & Medicine. 2001;53(5):627-38.
• 12. Chiang HH, Chao YM, Yuh YS. The maternal self in pregnant women undergoing maternal serum screening. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16(6):1180-5.
• 13. Bewley S. Restricting the freedom of pregnant women. In: Dickenson D, editor. Ethical issues in maternal-fetal medicine: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
• 14. Lenhard W, Breitenbach E, Ebert H, Schindelhauer-Deutscher HJ, Zang KD, Henn W. Attitudes of Mothers Towards Their Child With Down Syndrome Before and After the Introduction of Prenatal Diagnosis. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 2007;45(2):98-102.
• 15. Asch A. Why I haven’t changed my mind about prenatal diagnosis: Reflections and refinements. Prenatal testing and disability rights. 2000;51.
• 16. Barker KK. A ship upon a stormy sea: The medicalization of pregnancy. Social Science & Medicine. 1998;47(8):1067-76.
• 17. Illich I. Sağlığın Gaspı,(Çev. Süha Serthabiboğlu), İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları. 2014.
• 18. Shakespeare TOM. Choices and Rights: Eugenics, genetics and disability equality. Disability & Society. 1998;13(5):665-81.
• 19. Edwards SD. Disability, identity and the “expressivist objection”. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2004;30(4):418-20.
• 20. Wasserman D, Asch A. A duty to discriminate? The American Journal of Bioethics. 2012;12(4):22-4.
• 21. Harris J. One principle and three fallacies of disability studies. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2001;27(6):383-7.
• 22. Savulescu J. Is current practice around late termination of pregnancy eugenic and discriminatory? Maternal interests and abortion. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2001;27(3):165-71.
• 23. Singer P. Pratik Etik. İstanbul: çev. Nedim Çatlı, İthaki Yayınları; 2015.
• 24. Asch A. Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion: a challenge to practice and policy. American Journal of Public Health. 1999;89(11):1649-57.
• 25. Middleton A, Hewison J, Mueller RF. Attitudes of Deaf Adults toward Genetic Testing for Hereditary Deafness. The American Journal of Human Genetics. 1998;63(4):1175-80.
• 26. Duster T, Beeson D. Pathways and Barriers to Genetic Testing and Screening: Molecular Genetics Meets the" High-risk Family". Institute for the Study of Social Change. 1997.
• 27. Rapp R, Ginsburg FD. Enabling disability: Rewriting kinship, reimagining citizenship. Public Culture. 2001;13(3):533-56.
• 28. Wasserman D, Asch A. Selecting for disability: acceptable lives, acceptable reasons. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2012;12(8):30-1.
• 29. Bittles AH, Bower C, Hussain R, Glasson EJ. The four ages of Down syndrome. Eur J Public Health. 2007;17(2):221-5.
• 30. Harris RA, Washington AE, Nease RF, Kuppermann M. Cost utility of prenatal diagnosis and the risk-based threshold. The Lancet. 2004;363(9405):276-82.
• 31. Binkert F, Mutter M, Schinzel A. Impact of prenatal diagnosis on the prevalence of live births with Down syndrome in the eastern half of Switzerland 1980-1996. Swiss medical weekly. 2002;132(33/34):478-84.
• 32. Aksoy S. Antenatal screening and its possible meaning from unborn baby's perspective. BMC medical ethics. 2001;2(1):1.
• 33. Çaha H. Elemeci Kürtaj: Öjenizmin Yeni Yüzü. Is Ahlakı Dergisi. 2014;7(2):53.
• 34. Metin S. Biyo-Tıp Etiği ve Hukuk. İstanbul: On İki Levha Yayıncılık, 2010.
• 35. David HP, Fleischhacker J, Hohn C. Abortion and Eugenics in Nazi Germany. Population and Development Review. 1988;14(1):81-112.
• 36. Reindal SM. Disability, gene therapy and eugenics-a challenge to John Harris. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2000;26(2):89-94.
• 37. Dixon DP. Informed consent or institutionalized eugenics? How the medical profession encourages abortion of fetuses with Down syndrome. Issues Law Med. 2008;24(1):3-59.
• 38. Heyd D. Prenatal diagnosis: whose right? Journal of medical ethics. 1995;21(5):292-7.
• 39. Platon. Devlet. 15 ed: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları; 2008.
• 40. Tosun F, Bilgin A, Kizilok A, Arpaci A, Yüregir G. Five-year evaluation of premarital screening program for hemoglobinopathies in the province of Mersin, Turkey. Turk J Hematol. 2006;23(2):84-9.
• 41. Bişgin A. Hemoglobinopatilerde Moleküler Genetik Tanı ve Genetik Danışmanlık. Zirve Tıp Derg 2016;1(2):54-8.
• 42. Bunim J. UCSF Surgeon Reflects on Performing World's First Fetal Surgery 30 Years Ago 2011 [Available from: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2011/02/9366/ucsf-surgeon-reflects-performing-worlds-first-fetal-surgery-30-years-ago
• 43. Savulescu J. Resources, Down's syndrome, and cardiac surgery. British Medical Journal. 2001;322(7291):875-876.
• 44. Kıran H, Kıran G, Güven MA. Maternal Yaşın Gebelik Seyri ve Fetal Prognoz Üzerine Etkileri. Arşiv Kaynak Tarama Dergisi. 2003;12(2).