The Dichotomy of Medical Ethics in the Field of Fetal Medicine
Chanchal Singh, Seema Thakur Fetal Medicine Unit, Madhukar Rainbow Children’s Hospital and BirthRight by Rainbow Hospitals, New Delhi, India Correspondence to: Dr Chanchal SinghEmail:chanchalsngh@gmail.com
1 Abstract
Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) by cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in maternal blood is increasingly being used for
screening for common aneuploidies due to its high sensitivity and specificity. The increased uptake of this noninvasive
test has also increased the prenatal detection of sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCA) which is usually an
unexpected finding for parents and clinicians alike, especially when the ultrasound does not report any abnormal
finding. One such condition being increasingly diagnosed prenatally is the triple X syndrome (47,XXX) which
has a reported incidence of 1 in 1000. Since the outcome of this condition is highly variable, with a large
majority thought to remain undiagnosed, counselling parents can be difficult for healthcare professionals.
This paper highlights the challenges of providing non-directive, evidence-based counselling, the ethical
dilemmas, and the contrasting outcomes depending on parents’ choices when confronted with this unexpected
diagnosis.
Keywords: Noninvasive prenatal screening, prenatal diagnosis, sex chromosome aneuploidy (SCA), triple X syndrome,
47XXX
2 Introduction
Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) by cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in maternal blood is currently recommended as the best
screening test for detection of the common aneuploidies in both singleton and twin pregnancies (Dungan et al., 2023). The
increased uptake of this noninvasive test has also increased the prenatal detection of sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCA)
that are reported to affect 1 in 400 newborns making these the most common chromosomal abnormalities (Hui et al.,
2023). One such condition is the triple X syndrome (47,XXX) which has a reported incidence of 1 in 1000 in the general
population. Triple X can be associated with orofacial clefts, cardiac abnormalities, and clubfoot which are usually
detectable at prenatal ultrasound. In the absence of congenital abnormalities, triple X fetuses are not known to
be at increased risk of other antenatal or postnatal complications compared to the general population,
and women who opt to continue their pregnancies should receive standard obstetric care (Reimers et al.,
2023).
Individuals with triple X are reported to be at increased risk of developmental delay, learning disabilities, and mental
health disorders as compared to the general population, but these findings are variable and not present in every case
(Tartaglia et al., 2020). There is also a difference in outcomes of prenatal versus postnatal diagnoses, with Wigby et al
suggesting that children diagnosed with triple X prenatally may have a higher intelligence quotient (IQ) and adaptive
skills though the risk for speech delay or learning disability still remains. However, accurate counselling regarding
expected outcomes is difficult because only 10% of affected triple X individuals are ever clinically diagnosed (Wigby et al.,
2016). A recent publication states that the reported data on medical and neurodevelopmental differences in individuals
with triple X syndrome should be interpreted with caution because of the ascertainment bias that would be
inherent to a condition that is diagnosed in only 10% of cases (Reimers et al., 2023). Since the outcome of
this condition is highly variable, counselling parents can be difficult for healthcare professionals (Fisher
et al., 2023). This paper aims to highlight this ethical conundrum by presenting three clinically similar
cases that had different outcomes, thus highlighting the divergent ethical ramifications of these unexpected
diagnoses.
Patient 1:A 36-year-old G3P1 with no live issue (first miscarriage, second unexplained intrauterine fetal demise at
26 weeks gestation) consulted us in her third pregnancy for the isolated finding of aberrant right subclavian
artery (ARSA) at the anomaly scan. Her triple marker showed low risk for Down syndrome. The options of
noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) and diagnostic test, i.e. amniocentesis were discussed with the couple. The
couple was counselled that NIPS remains a screening test despite its high detection rate and that a high-risk
report will need confirmation with amniocentesis. Considering the bad obstetric history and the 1% risk of
miscarriage associated with invasive testing, the couple opted for NIPS. NIPS reported ‘low risk’ for trisomy
21,18, and 13 but gave ‘high risk’ for triple X (XXX). The result was discussed with the couple, and they
were offered amniocentesis. The couple was also given relevant clinical information regarding triple X (
https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/trisomy-x/). After counselling, the couple opted against invasive testing
as they felt they were okay to have a baby with triple X. They opted to do their karyotypes, and interestingly, the
mother herself had a triple X karyotype. She went on to have a normal delivery of a healthy baby girl at
term.
Patient 2: A 42-year-old primigravida who conceived naturally came to us at 14 weeks and 3 days with a high risk for
Down syndrome on dual marker test. The risk was in the screen positive range (cut off of 1 in 250 used to define ‘high
risk’) but it was actually reduced compared to the age-related background risk. An ultrasound was performed, and there
were no structural abnormalities nor any markers for chromosomal abnormalities detectable at that gestation.
The options of noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) vis a vis invasive testing, i.e., amniocentesis were
discussed with the couple. This couple was also counselled that NIPS remains a screening test, and a high-risk
result will need confirmation with amniocentesis. NIPS can be done at any gestational age between 9-24
weeks, whereas amniocentesis is best performed at or after 16 weeks. The couple opted for NIPS which was
given the same day. The NIPS report came eight days later and reported ‘low risk’ for trisomy 21,18, and
13 but gave ‘high risk’ for triple X (XXX). The report was shared with the couple, and they were asked
to come back for a consultation. The patient requested our team to speak to her sister, who happened
to be a genetic counsellor, and we discussed this result with her. Since the positive predictive value of
NIPS for sex chromosomal abnormalities is only about 50% (Kornman et al., 2018), amniocentesis was
offered. The couple was agreeable, and an uneventful procedure was done the same day. The quantitative
fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (QFPCR) report also reported triple X in the fetus. The couple was
asked to consult the medical geneticist soon after the reports came. The expectant mother came for the
consultation accompanied by her sister and was counselled regarding the possible outcomes of this condition. A
non-directive counselling was done, and recent literature was shared with the mother. The mother and her
sister expressed their wish to continue the pregnancy as she had conceived with difficulty. A day after this
consultation, we started receiving disturbing, lengthy emails, calls and WhatsApp messages from the patient’s
husband accusing us of encouraging his wife to have an ‘abnormal’ baby. He was outraged at how could a
consultation be done for his wife with his sister-in-law in his absence. This was when we realized that there was a
difference of opinion between the couple regarding the continuation of pregnancy. We replied to the first mail
addressing his concerns, and we reiterated that as clinicians, we could only provide correct information.
Prompt genetic counselling was provided as soon as the diagnosis was confirmed. The decision to continue (or
discontinue) the pregnancy is a prerogative of the couple, and we as clinicians would provide support in
whatever decision they take. The husband sent a legal notice to his wife with a copy to our team that he will
not be responsible for the upkeep of the ‘abnormal’ baby if she continued with the pregnancy. Eventually,
the patient wrote a mail to the hospital administration that the fetal medicine team had spoken to her
sister at her request and that she had no complaint regarding the clinicians dealing with her case. The
hospital administration requested the husband to come for a meeting in which it was conveyed to him
that an internal inquiry of the hospital did not find any ‘malpractice’ in handling this case. The couple
filed for mutual divorce and the expectant mother chose to carry on with her antenatal care in another
place.
Patient 3:A 39-year-old G3A2 came for a fetal medicine consultation at ten weeks gestation as she herself was
diagnosed with a triple X karyotype on undergoing investigations for her previous two miscarriages. This lady has a
postgraduate degree and is working at a senior position in a multinational company and has no history of any significant
medical or surgical history. The possibility of having a fetus with normal karyotype, triple X karyotype or XXY was
discussed with the couple. Both parents were unanimous in their opinion that they would continue with the
pregnancy in case the fetus turned out to have a triple X karyotype. An amniocentesis was performed at 17
weeks, and the fetal karyotype was normal. She went on to have a normal delivery of a healthy baby boy at
term.
3 Discussion
It is difficult to define what constitutes ‘ethics’. A combination of one’s values, belief systems, and experience(s) shapes
every individual’s unique code of ethics. Society, in general, gives us a broad background of what constitutes ‘right’, but
there remains plenty of room for variation within this framework. Fetal medicine is a particularly vulnerable branch as it
deals with something that is partly unknown. An ultrasound done halfway through pregnancy at around 18-20 weeks is
expected to predict how the fetus will evolve over the next 20 weeks and presumably even for the first two years after
birth. Subtle findings or the so-called ‘soft markers’ generate a lot of anxiety when mentioned to expecting parents. As per
standard clinical guidelines and recommendations, a fetal medicine specialist is expected to look for these and discuss
the uncertainty of ‘screening tests’ vis a vis the certainty of diagnostic but invasive tests with an inherent
albeit small risk of miscarriage (ACOG Practice Bulletin; 2020). Thus, the fetal medicine specialist walks a
tightrope between flagging up findings and not alarming the parents enough to make pregnancy an arduous
journey.
Add to it the recognition of newer findings where the outcome is highly variable. This dilemma was presented
strikingly in these three cases where there was no ‘structural’ abnormality in the fetus but we, both the clinicians and
parents, were faced with a diagnosis with no certain answers. These cases with similar test results also illustrate the
dramatically different ‘ethical’ repercussions despite our best intentions of providing the most up-to-date, accurate
information to parents in a timely manner and with nondirective counselling. We believe that there is no ‘correct’ way of
dealing with these sensitive issues, and as clinicians, one can only take solace in the fact that one acted to the best of
their capabilities and as per current guidelines. But does that absolve us from the upheaval that we create
in our patients’ lives, however unintentional that might be? The purpose of sharing these cases with the
medical fraternity is to sensitize our colleagues to the vagaries of this specialty that has more unknowns than
knowns.
References
1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics;
Committee on Genetics; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Screening for Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities:
ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 226. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136(4): e48-e69.
2. Dungan JS, et al. Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) for fetal chromosome abnormalities in a
general-risk population: An evidence-based clinical guideline of the American College of Medical Genetics and
Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2023; 25(2): 100336.
3. Fisher J, et al. When a sex chromosome aneuploidy is diagnosed-views from a parent support organisation.
Prenat Diagn. 2023; 43(2): 235-239.
4. Hui L, et al. Prenatal screening and diagnosis of sex chromosome conditions: The new normal? Prenat
Diagn. 2023; 43(2): 131-132.
5. Kornman L, et al. Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Sex Chromosome Aneuploidy in Routine Clinical
Practice. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2018; 44(2): 85-90.
6. Reimers R, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of sex chromosome aneuploidy-What do we tell the prospective parents?
Prenat Diagn. 2023; 43(2): 250-260.
7. Tartaglia N, et al. Early neurodevelopmental and medical profile in children with sex chromosome trisomies:
background for the prospective eXtraordinarY babies study to identify early risk factors and targets for
intervention. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2020;184(2): 428-443.
8. Wigby K, et al. Expanding the phenotype of Triple X syndrome: A comparison of prenatal versus postnatal
diagnosis. Am J Med Genet A. 2016; 170(11): 2870-2881.