Human Reproduction, Vol. 17, No. 9, 2464-2467,
September 2002
© 2002 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: patients’ experiences and attitudes
1 Division of Paediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Imperial College, Hammersmith Hospital and Du Cane Rd, London W12 0HS, UK and 2 Institut Universitari Dexeus, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Pg.Bonanova 67, 08017 Barcelona, Spain
BACKGROUND: This study aims to report the experiences and attitudes of patients who have undergone preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). The extent to which this technique is acceptable to the individuals for whom it is intended is relatively unexplored, and remains a crucial issue that may ultimately determine the value of PGD as an alternative to prenatal diagnosis in high-risk couples. METHODS: An information sheet and questionnaire was distributed to 67 couples who had been treated at the Hammersmith Hospital, London and the Dexeus Institute, Barcelona. RESULTS: One-third of patients had an affected child, over half had previous experience of conventional prenatal diagnosis and over one-third had had terminations of pregnancy because of a genetic risk. Patients perceive the main advantage of PGD to be that only unaffected embryos are transferred to the uterus and thus therapeutic termination of pregnancy can be avoided; the main disadvantage is the low success rate. A total of 41% of patients found the treatment cycle extremely stressful, and, of the 20 patients who had experienced both prenatal diagnosis and PGD, 40% of patients found PGD less stressful, although 35% experienced more stress. Of those couples who contemplated a further pregnancy 76% would choose PGD, 16% would opt for prenatal diagnosis, and 8% no tests at all. CONCLUSIONS: The experience of prenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancy can be an unwelcome memory and this leads to a demand for an alternative approach. Our data suggest that PGD is acceptable to patients and is a valuable alternative to prenatal diagnosis.
Key words: attitudes/experience/patient/preimplantation/stress
3 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: stuart.lavery{at}ic.ac.uk
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  U. Menon, J. Harper, A. Sharma, L. Fraser, M. Burnell, K. ElMasry, C. Rodeck, and I. Jacobs Views of BRCA gene mutation carriers on preimplantation genetic diagnosis as a reproductive option for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2007; 22(6): 1573 - 1577. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Donoso, W. Verpoest, E.G. Papanikolaou, I. Liebaers, H.M. Fatemi, K. Sermon, C. Staessen, J. Van der Elst, and P. Devroey Single embryo transfer in preimplantation genetic diagnosis cycles for women <36 years does not reduce delivery rate Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2007; 22(4): 1021 - 1025. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Gotz and M. Gotz How and why parents change their attitudes to prenatal diagnosis. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, April 1, 2006; 11(2): 293 - 300. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. R. Schover Motivation for Parenthood After Cancer: A Review J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, March 1, 2005; 2005(34): 2 - 5. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. C. Friedman and R. M. Kramer Reproductive Issues for Women With BRCA Mutations J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, March 1, 2005; 2005(34): 83 - 86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U. Meister, C. Finck, Y. Stobel-Richter, G. Schmutzer, and E. Brahler Knowledge and attitudes towards preimplantation genetic diagnosis in Germany Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2005; 20(1): 231 - 238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|