Skip header and navigation

2 records – page 1 of 1.

Attitudes to prenatal screening among Norwegian citizens: liberality, ambivalence and sensitivity.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature300333
Source
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 09 18; 19(1):80
Publication Type
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Date
09-18-2018
Author
Morten Magelssen
Berge Solberg
Magne Supphellen
Guttorm Haugen
Author Affiliation
Centre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Pb. 1130 Blindern, N-0318, Oslo, Norway. magelssen@gmail.com.
Source
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 09 18; 19(1):80
Date
09-18-2018
Language
English
Publication Type
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Keywords
Adolescent
Adult
Attitude to Health
Down Syndrome - diagnosis - psychology
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Norway
Politics
Prenatal Diagnosis - ethics - psychology
Surveys and Questionnaires
Young Adult
Abstract
Norway's liberal abortion law allows for abortion on social indications, yet access to screening for fetal abnormalities is restricted. Norwegian regulation of, and public discourse about prenatal screening and diagnosis has been exceptional. In this study, we wanted to investigate whether the exceptional regulation is mirrored in public attitudes.
An electronic questionnaire with 11 propositions about prenatal screening and diagnosis was completed by 1617 Norwegian adults (response rate 8.5%).
A majority of respondents supports increased access to prenatal screening with ultrasound (60%) and/or full genome sequencing of fetal DNA (55%) available for all pregnant women. Significant minorities indicate, however, that a public offer of prenatal screening for all pregnant women would signal that people with Down syndrome are unwanted (46%) or could be criticized for contributing to a 'sorting society' (48%).
Results indicate deeper ambivalences and a cultural sensitivity to the ethical challenges of prenatal screening and subsequent abortions. The specific diagnosis of Down syndrome and the fear of becoming a 'sorting society' which sorts human life due to diagnoses, appear to play prominent roles in citizen deliberations. The low response rate means that a non-response bias cannot be excluded, yet reasons why results are still likely to be of value are discussed.
PubMed ID
30227857 View in PubMed
Less detail

Management of suspected primary Toxoplasma gondii infection in pregnant women in Norway: twenty years of experience of amniocentesis in a low-prevalence population.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature290084
Source
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 04 26; 17(1):127
Publication Type
Journal Article
Date
04-26-2017
Author
Gry Findal
Anne Helbig
Guttorm Haugen
Pål A Jenum
Babill Stray-Pedersen
Author Affiliation
University of Oslo, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Oslo, Norway. gryfi@medisin.uio.no.
Source
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 04 26; 17(1):127
Date
04-26-2017
Language
English
Publication Type
Journal Article
Keywords
Abortion, Spontaneous - etiology
Adult
Amniocentesis - adverse effects
Female
Humans
Maternal Serum Screening Tests - methods
Norway
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Complications, Parasitic - diagnosis
Prenatal Diagnosis - adverse effects - methods
Retrospective Studies
Toxoplasmosis - diagnosis
Unnecessary Procedures - adverse effects - methods
Abstract
Primary infection with Toxoplasma gondii during pregnancy may pose a threat to the fetus. Women infected prior to conception are unlikely to transmit the parasite to the fetus. If maternal serology indicates a possible primary infection, amniocentesis for toxoplasma PCR analysis is performed and antiparasitic treatment given. However, discriminating between primary and latent infection is challenging and unnecessary amniocenteses may occur. Procedure-related fetal loss after amniocentesis is of concern. The aim of the present study was to determine whether amniocentesis is performed on the correct patients and whether the procedure is safe for this indication.
Retrospective study analysing data from all singleton pregnancies (n?=?346) at Oslo University Hospital undergoing amniocentesis due to suspected maternal primary toxoplasma infection during 1993-2013. Maternal, neonatal and infant data were obtained from clinical hospital records, laboratory records and pregnancy charts. All serum samples were analysed at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health or at the Toxoplasma Reference Laboratory at Oslo University Hospital. The amniocenteses were performed at Oslo University Hospital by experienced personnel. Time of maternal infection was evaluated retrospectively based on serology results.
50% (173) of the women were infected before pregnancy, 23% (80) possibly in pregnancy and 27% (93) were certainly infected during pregnancy. Forty-nine (14%) women seroconverted, 42 (12%) had IgG antibody increase and 255 (74%) women had IgM positivity and low IgG avidity/high dye test titre. Fifteen offspring were infected with toxoplasma, one of them with negative PCR in the amniotic fluid. Median gestational age at amniocentesis was 16.7 gestational weeks (GWs) (Q1?=?15, Q3?=?22), with median sample volume 4 ml (Q1?=?3, Q3?=?7). Two miscarriages occurred 4 weeks after the procedure, both performed in GW 13. One of these had severe fetal toxoplasma infection.
Half of our study population were infected before pregnancy. In order to reduce the unnecessary amniocenteses we advise confirmatory serology 3 weeks after a suspect result and suggest that the serology is interpreted by dedicated multidisciplinary staff. Amniocentesis is safe and useful as a diagnostic procedure in diagnosing congenital toxoplasma infection when performed after 15 GW.
Notes
Cites: PLoS One. 2015 Dec 29;10(12):e0145519 PMID 26714282
Cites: APMIS. 1998 Jul;106(7):680-6 PMID 9740505
Cites: BJOG. 2005 Apr;112(4):394-402 PMID 15777434
Cites: Clin Infect Dis. 2013 May;56(9):1223-31 PMID 23362291
Cites: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;47(1):38-44 PMID 26581188
Cites: Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2004;40(1):81-8 PMID 15269456
Cites: Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015 Feb;21(2):191.e1-8 PMID 25596783
Cites: Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Feb;97(2):296-300 PMID 11165598
Cites: J Infect Dis. 2001 Apr 15;183(8):1248-53 PMID 11262207
Cites: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2009 Jul;64(3):267-74 PMID 19395217
Cites: Am J Perinatol. 2006 Jan;23(1):25-30 PMID 16450269
Cites: Clin Infect Dis. 2008 Aug 15;47(4):554-66 PMID 18624630
Cites: PLoS One. 2016 Apr 07;11(4):e0149938 PMID 27055272
Cites: Lancet. 1986 Jun 7;1(8493):1287-93 PMID 2423826
Cites: PLoS Med. 2010 Oct 12;7(10):null PMID 20967235
Cites: Int J Parasitol. 2009 Oct;39(12):1385-94 PMID 19433092
Cites: Prenat Diagn. 2007 May;27(5):395-403 PMID 17380472
Cites: Scand J Infect Dis. 1979;11(2):159-65 PMID 462133
Cites: Clin Infect Dis. 1994 Jun;18(6):853-61; quiz 862 PMID 8086543
Cites: Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2012 Nov;19(11):1838-43 PMID 22993406
Cites: BJOG. 2003 Apr;110(4):392-9 PMID 12699801
Cites: Epidemiol Infect. 1998 Feb;120(1):87-92 PMID 9528822
Cites: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Dec;203(6):552.e1-6 PMID 20633868
Cites: Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009 Mar;279(3):357-60 PMID 18665378
Cites: J Clin Microbiol. 1998 Oct;36(10):2900-6 PMID 9738041
Cites: Padiatr Padol. 1972;7(1):14-9 PMID 4670273
Cites: Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2013 Feb;20(2):197-204 PMID 23239801
Cites: Prenat Diagn. 1998 Aug;18(8):773-8 PMID 9742564
Cites: J Clin Microbiol. 1997 Aug;35(8):1972-7 PMID 9230365
Cites: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1996 Oct;15(10):799-805 PMID 8950557
Cites: Fetal Diagn Ther. 2010;27(1):1-7 PMID 20051662
Cites: APMIS. 2015 Apr;123(4):321-5 PMID 25628065
Cites: N Engl J Med. 1988 Feb 4;318(5):271-5 PMID 3336419
Cites: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013 Jul;169(2):230-3 PMID 23664797
Cites: Lancet. 2007 Jan 13;369(9556):115-22 PMID 17223474
Cites: Scand J Public Health. 2011 Jul;39(5):464-70 PMID 21339369
Cites: Science. 1948 Dec 10;108(2815):660-3 PMID 17744024
Cites: Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Mar;111(3):589-95 PMID 18310360
Cites: Lancet. 1999 May 29;353(9167):1829-33 PMID 10359407
PubMed ID
28441952 View in PubMed
Less detail