Hong Kong Med J 2015 Apr;21(2):188–90 | Epub 27 Feb 2015
DOI: 10.12809/hkmj144464
© Hong Kong Academy of Medicine. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
COMMENTARY
Halt hereditary tragedy by bridging the gap between knowledge and application of technology
KK Lau, FRCP, FHKAM (Medicine)1; Ernest HY Ng, MD, FHKAM (Obstetrics and Gynaecology)2; YM Tso, M Phil3; CM Mak, MD, PhD4
1Department of Medicine and Geriatrics, Princess Margaret Hospital, Laichikok, Hong Kong
2Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
3Department of Education Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong
4Chemical Pathology & Genetic Pathology Laboratories, Department of Pathology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Laichikok, Hong Kong
Corresponding author: Dr KK Lau (dominickklau@hotmail.com)
Full
paper in PDF
In 1983, when Hayes1 heard on the car radio that a genetic test was available for Huntington’s disease,
she stopped her car and cried. She recalled her
grandfather in a mental hospital with chorea
movement and dementia. Her aunt and uncle were
later to suffer the same fate. When her mother was
diagnosed, she realised that her brother and she
were at high risk. Although this hereditary pattern
was well recognised, it was never discussed openly.
She broke down before the genetic test.1
After three decades of research, there have
been many breakthroughs in the diagnosis of genetic
diseases. In the case of spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA),
the majority of affected patients have autosomal
dominant inheritance.2 3 Today, a genetic test can be performed as early as 3 days following fertilisation
during in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).4 Preimplantation
genetic diagnosis (PGD), which analyses genetic
makeup from one biopsied cell of a 3-day-old
embryo, allows confirmation of SCA before the
embryo is transferred back to the uterus.4
Despite these advances, there remains no cure
and genetic testing can be a double-edged sword.
Early diagnosis is possible but stressful for the
sufferer.1 5 The impact also affects all blood-related family members and is lifelong.
Although genetic constituents cannot be
changed, the problem of acquired hereditary
disease can be addressed by selection of unaffected
embryos. Assisted reproductive technology (ART)
has advanced rapidly since the first IVF baby
was delivered in 1978.6 Together with PGD, the
transmissibility of many hereditary diseases and
their management have been transformed.7 Assisted
reproductive technology is associated with low
success rates, risks of ovarian hyperstimulation
syndrome and multiple pregnancies, and requires
prenatal confirmation. Thus PGD has received great
attention and has raised both local and international
concern because of varying beliefs and cultures.7
The development of ART has entered a new
era, with a vivid description in a 2003 UNESCO
(United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization) report on PGD and Germ-Line
Intervention8: “IVF aims at having a child, PGD aims
at having a healthy child and PGD/HLA [human
leukocyte antigen] testing aims at having a healthy
and helpful child.” The ethical issues that surround
ART have never been underestimated.9
There are patients who exhibit full clinical
features of hereditary cerebellar ataxia, but the
responsible genes have not been identified.10 The
percentage of familial SCA gene mutations identified
is estimated to be 50% to 80%, with variation due
to geographical difference.11 Although the number
of identifiable SCA genes has expanded, those
individuals with no identifiable gene cannot receive
a genetic diagnosis, and thus cannot benefit from
PGD/ART.
In Hong Kong, there is stigma associated
with genetic testing. “Recipients of genetic testing
have complained of being rejected by insurance
companies.” (written communication, YM Tso,
Founding Chair of Hong Kong Spinocerebellar
Ataxia Association [HKSCAA], 2014). “They are barred from
normal medical policies, or the insurance loading
will be increased tremendously.”
The HKSCAA was established in 2007, and
includes SCA patients and their relatives. A survey
within HKSCAA was carried out in December 2014.12
Study subjects were asymptomatic family members
of SCA sufferers, aged between 18 and 50 years.
Of the 25 who replied, 22 (88%) were aware that a
genetic test could confirm the diagnosis, and 24 (96%)
knew that they had a 50% chance of transmitting the
condition to any children. It was noteworthy that 13
(52%) were unaware that ART could help them avoid
transmitting SCA to the next generation. There is
thus a gap between advances in medical technology
and their application.13 “For asymptomatic members
from SCA family, the need for PGD has to be met.
However, PGD is an expensive procedure and
should be covered by the public health system as
most affected individuals cannot afford it.” (written
communication, YM Tso, 2014).
A question about pre-genetic counselling was
asked in the same survey.12 Of the 25 respondents, 15
(60%) did not know that pre-testing “psychological
preparation” was necessary.13 14 15 They had no concept
of being psychologically prepared for both positive or negative result before the test. These individuals
have two unfulfilled needs: first, a structured
psychological referral that should be easily available,
and second, knowledge that this need exists. There
is thus a requirement for high-quality psychological
support prior to a test that will impact both the
person being tested and their relatives.10 15 16
The survey did not question individuals about
future plans to marry or bear children. It is likely
that were such questions asked, respondents might
not have known how to answer. A German study
revealed that some affected individuals would get pregnant despite the knowledge of 50% risk of
having an affected child.17
The opinions and beliefs of partners also
deserve consideration,10 and whenever possible, both
parties should be involved in discussions.15 Studies
have shown that patients remember subjectively:
information is received and processed within their
personal frame of reference, or only selectively
recalled.18
Supporting information, such as pamphlets
and websites, are useful.12 Ample time should be
available at each consultation for questions, and
sufficient time allowed between each visit to process
information.15 Other possibilities such as adoption
can also be mentioned.14 Studies have shown that
women have mixed beliefs about when a baby is formed, or when it is considered a living being.14
In some instances, an affected pregnancy is
voluntarily terminated following invasive prenatal
diagnosis during pregnancy. In a 2010 study in the
Netherlands, 42% of the respondents were not aware
of PGD.19 Nevertheless when asked if they would
welcome the option, only 74% answered yes. Some
couples did not want any diagnostic testing and
welcomed the child regardless of whether or not the
genetic disorder was present. Whatever the decision,
patients’ wishes must be respected.19
In another study, potential couples with a
hereditary disease were found to enter into complex,
dynamic, and interactive decision-making processes
that could be divided into four phases: identify,
contemplate, resolve, and engage.20 In the identify
phase, couples acknowledged the meaning and their
risk. In the contemplate phase, they identified their
options in reproduction. In the resolve phase, there
were three options: accept, decline, or oscillate. In
the engage phase, the final decision was made.20
There is a gap between available technology
and public knowledge about it. When a person with a
family history of SCA wishes to start a family, referral
channels that involve an obstetrician, a clinician,
and a pathologist with genetic training should
be easily accessible for premarital counselling.15
The waiting time should not be long. Only health care
professionals have the knowledge and capacity to
provide the essential support that is required.1 5 The issue is sensitive and incurs social, ethical, and legal aspects.9 16 Care should be sincere and pragmatic and the referral structure should be timely.1 4 Couples
should be equipped with sufficient knowledge to
make informed choices before they embark on the
route to parenthood.19
References
1. Hayes CV. Genetic testing for Huntington’s disease—a
family issue. N Engl J Med 1992;327:1449-51. Crossref
2. Harding AE. Classification of the hereditary ataxias and
paraplegias. Lancet 1983;1:1151-5. Crossref
3. Lima L, Coutinho P. Clinical criteria for diagnosis of
Machado-Joseph disease: report of a non-Azorena
Portuguese family. Neurology 1980;30:319-22. Crossref
4. Handyside AH, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston
RM. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation
embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature
1990;344:768-70. Crossref
5. Wiggins S, Whyte P, Huggins M, et al. The psychological
consequences of predictive testing for Huntington’s disease.
Canadian Collaborative Study of Predictive Testing. N Engl
J Med 1992;327:1401-5. Crossref
6. Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of
a human embryo. Lancet 1978;2:366. Crossref
7. Human Genetics Commission Consultation, Choosing
the future: genetics and reproductive decision making. Available from: http://www.geneticalliance.org.uk/docs/hgcreproduction2004.pdf. Accessed Jan 2015.
8. UNESCO. International Bioethics Committee (IBC):
Report of the IBC on pre-implantation genetic diagnosis
and germ-line intervention; 2003.
9. Wertz DC, Fletcher JC Berg K. Review of ethical issues in
medical genetics. WHO: Geneva; 2003. Available from:
http://www.who.int/genomics/publications/en/ethical_issuesin_medgenetics%20report.pdf?ua=1. Accessed Jan
2015.
10. Box H, Bonney H, Greenfield J. The patient’s journey: the
progressive ataxias. BMJ 2005;331:1007-9. Crossref
11. Soong BW. Hereditary spinocerebellar ataxias: number,
prevalence, and treatment prospects. Hong Kong Med J
2004;10:229-30.
12. 「眼淚可以不再流」醫學講座暨問卷調查結果. “No
more tears” — Medical lecture and survey results about
cerebellar atrophy [in Chinese]. Available from: http://www.hkscaa.org/main.php. Accessed 19 Dec 2014.
13. Ethics Committee of American Society for Reproductive
Medicine. Use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for
serious adult onset conditions: a committee opinion. Fertil
Steril 2013;100:54-7. Crossref
14. van Schendel RV, Kleinveld JH, Dondorp WJ, et al.
Attitudes of pregnant women and male partners towards
non-invasive prenatal testing and widening the scope of
prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet 2014;22:1345-50. Crossref
15. Rantanen E, Hietala M, Kristoffersson U, et al. What is
ideal genetic counselling? A survey of current international
guidelines. Eur J Hum Genet 2008;16:445-52. Crossref
16. Conti A, Delbon P, Sirignano A. Informed consent when
taking genetic decisions. Med Law 2004;23:337-53.
17. Kreuz FR. Attitudes of German persons at risk for
Huntington’s disease toward predictive and prenatal
testing. Genet Couns 1996;7:303-11.
18. Michie S, McDonald V, Marteau TM. Genetic counselling:
information given, recall and satisfaction. Patient Educ
Couns 1997;32:101-6. Crossref
19. Musters AM, Twisk M, Leschot NJ, et al. Perspectives of
couples with high risk of transmitting genetic disorders.
Fertil Steril 2010;94:1239-43. Crossref
20. Hershberger PE, Gallo AM, Kavanaugh K, Olshansky E,
Schwartz A, Tur-Kaspa I. The decision-making process
of genetically at-risk couples considering preimplantation
genetic diagnosis: initial findings from a grounded theory
study. Soc Sci Med 2012;74:1536-43. Crossref