medgenМедицинская генетикаMedical Genetics2073-7998Publishing House «Genius Media» LLC10.25557/2073-7998.2025.04.4-11medgen-2941Research ArticleНАУЧНЫЙ ОБЗОРREVIEWЭтические проблемы преконцепционного генетического тестированияEthical issues of preconception genetic testingГребенщиковаЕ. Г.GrebenshchikovaE. G.

Гребенщикова Елена Георгиевна

117418, г. Москва, Нахимовский проспект, д. 51/21,

117513, г. Москва, , ул. Островитянова, д.1

 Elena G. Grebenshchikova

51/21, Nakhimovsky prospect, Moscow, 117418,

1, Ostrovitianova st., Moscow, 117513

aika45@yandex.ruФГБУН Институт научной информации по общественным наукам Российской академии наук; ФГАОУ ВО Российский национальный исследовательский медицинский университет им. Н.И. Пирогова Минздрава РоссииРоссияInstitute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Pirogov Russian National Research Medical UniversityRussian Federation202526072025244411Copyright © Гребенщикова Е.Г., 20252025Гребенщикова Е.Г.Grebenshchikova E.G.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.medgen-journal.ru/jour/article/view/2941

Этические проблемы преконцепционного генетического тестирования долгое время ассоциировались только с программами профилактики нескольких наследственных заболеваний в отдельных регионах мира. Перспективы внедрения преконцепционного генетического скрининга в здравоохранение актуализируют комплекс этических проблем, связанных с информированием будущих родителей, обеспечением их осмысленного выбора, предупреждением дискриминации и учетом уже накопленного в медицинской генетике опыта. При этом особое значение имеют социокультурные аспекты, поскольку они влияют на принятие решений относительно тестирования, социальное восприятие рисков и готовность принимать решения на основе информации, полученной от врача-генетика.

For a long time, ethical issues related to preconception genetic testing have been associated primarily with prevention programs for a limited number of hereditary diseases in specific regions of the world. The prospect of introducing preconception genetic screening into healthcare systems brings to light a complex set of ethical challenges, including providing comprehensive information to prospective parents, ensuring their truly informed decision-making, preventing discrimination, and drawing upon the accumulated experience of medical genetics. Sociocultural factors are particularly important in this context, as they influence the decision-making process regarding testing, shape social perceptions of risk, and affect individuals’ willingness to make choices based on information received from medical geneticists.

преконцепционное генетическое тестированиепреконцепционный генетический скринингпрофилактика наследственных болезнейрепродуктивная автономиябиоэтикаpreconception genetic testingpreconception genetic screeningprevention of hereditary diseasesreproductive autonomybioethicsИсследование выполнено за счет гранта Российского научного фонда (проект № 19-18-00422)The study was carried out with the support of the Russian Science Foundation (grant no. 19-18-00422)Referencesde Wert G., van der Hout S., Goddijn M. et.al The ethics of preconception expanded carrier screening in patients seeking assisted reproduction. Human reproduction open. 2021; 2021 (1): hoaa063. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa063de Wert G., van der Hout S., Goddijn M. et.al The ethics of preconception expanded carrier screening in patients seeking assisted reproduction. Human reproduction open. 2021; 2021 (1): hoaa063. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa063Lucassen A., Gilbar R. Disclosure of genetic information to relatives: balancing confidentiality and relatives’ interests. Journal of Medical Genetics. 2018; 55(4):285-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2017-104843Lucassen A., Gilbar R. Disclosure of genetic information to relatives: balancing confidentiality and relatives’ interests. Journal of Medical Genetics. 2018; 55(4):285-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2017-104843Ekstein J., Katzenstein H. The DorYeshorim story: community-based carrier screening for Tay-Sachs disease. Advances in genetics. 2001;44: 297-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2660(01)44087-9Ekstein J., Katzenstein H. The DorYeshorim story: community-based carrier screening for Tay-Sachs disease. Advances in genetics. 2001;44: 297-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2660(01)44087-9Ассаэль Б.М. Дьявольский ген. СПб.: Благотворительный фонд «Острова»; 2017. 284 с.Assael B.M. D’yavol’skiy gen [Devil’s Gene]. SPb.: Blagotvoritel’nyy fond «Ostrova»; 2017. 284 p. (In Russ.)Prainsack B., Siegal G. The rise of genetic couplehood? A comparative view of premarital genetic testing. Biosocieties. 2006; 1(1): 17-36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855205050106Prainsack B., Siegal G. The rise of genetic couplehood? A comparative view of premarital genetic testing. Biosocieties. 2006; 1(1): 17-36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855205050106Raz A.E. Community genetics and genetic alliances. Eugenesis, carrier testing and networks of risk. London, New York: Routledge, 2010.Raz A.E. Community genetics and genetic alliances. Eugenesis, carrier testing and networks of risk. London, New York: Routledge, 2010.Harper P., Clarke C. Society and Clinical Practice. Oxford: BiosScientific, 1997.Harper P., Clarke C. Society and Clinical Practice. Oxford: BiosScientific, 1997.Hout S.,van der, Dondorp W., Wert G.,de. The aims of expanded universal carrier screening: autonomy, prevention, and responsible parenthood. Bioethics; 2019; 33(5): 568-576. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12555Hout S.,van der, Dondorp W., Wert G.,de. The aims of expanded universal carrier screening: autonomy, prevention, and responsible parenthood. Bioethics; 2019; 33(5): 568-576. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12555https://doryeshorim.orghttps://doryeshorim.orgPrenatal testing and disability rights /Parens E., Asch A. (eds.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2000.Prenatal testing and disability rights /Parens E., Asch A. (eds.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2000.Human Genetics Commission. Increasing options, informing choice: A report on preconception genetic testing and screening. Retrieved from: https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/257/files/2011/04/2011.HGC_.-Increasing-options-informingchoicefinal2.pdf. 2011Human Genetics Commission. Increasing options, informing choice: A report on preconception genetic testing and screening. Retrieved from: https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/257/files/2011/04/2011.HGC_.-Increasing-options-informingchoicefinal2.pdf. 2011Purdy L. Women’s reproductive autonomy: medicalisation and beyond. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2006; 32 (5): 287-291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.2004.013193Purdy L. Women’s reproductive autonomy: medicalisation and beyond. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2006; 32 (5): 287-291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.2004.013193Robertson J. Children of choice: freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.Robertson J. Children of choice: freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.Гребенщикова Е. Г., Чучалин А. Г. Уважая автономию пациента: добровольное информированное согласие в современной медицине. Медицинская этика. 2021. 1:12–16. DOI: 10.24075/medet.2021.001Grebenshchikova E.G., Chuchalin A.G. Respecting patient autonomy: voluntary informed consent in modern medicine. Medical Ethics. 2021; (1): 11–4. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24075/medet.2021.001Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), 2019.Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), 2019.Grody W. W., Thompson B. H., Gregg A. R. et al. ACMG position statement on prenatal/preconception expanded carrier screening. Genetics in Medicine. 2013; 15(6): 482-483. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.47Grody W.W., Thompson B.H., Gregg A.R. et al. ACMG position statement on prenatal/preconception expanded carrier screening. Genetics in Medicine. 2013; 15(6): 482-483. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.47Kihlbom U. Ethical issues in preconception genetic carrier screening. Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences. 2016;121(4): 295-298. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03009734.2016.1189470Kihlbom U. Ethical issues in preconception genetic carrier screening //Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences. 2016;121(4): 295-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/03009734.2016.1189470Zhang S. The Last Children of Down Syndrome. Prenatal tests decide who is born into the world and who is not. The Atlantic, 2020; Dec.: 42-55Zhang S. The Last Children of Down Syndrome. Prenatal tests decide who is born into the world and who is not. The Atlantic, 2020; 42-55Davis D.S. Genetic dilemmas: Reproductive technology, parental choices and children’s futures. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2010.Davis D.S. Genetic dilemmas: Reproductive technology, parental choices and children’s futures. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2010.Carrier screening for beta-thalassaemia: a review of international practice. European journal of human genetics. 2010; 18(10):1077- 1083. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2010.90Carrier screening for beta-thalassaemia: a review of international practice. European journal of human genetics. 2010; 18(10):1077- 1083. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2010.90Баранова Е. Е. и др. Этические проблемы геномного скрининга: обзор литературы. Медицинская генетика. 2021. 20(5): 3-14. DOI: 10.25557/2073-7998.2021.05.3-14Baranova E.E., Zobkova G.Yu., Vorontsova M.V., Izhevskaya V.L. Ethical issues of genome screening: review. Meditsinskaya genetika [Medical genetics] 2021; 20(5): 3-14. DOI: 10.25557/2073-7998.2021.05.3-14 (In Russ.)

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.