Qualitative study of GPs’ views and experiences of population-based preconception expanded carrier screening in the Netherlands: bioethical perspectives

ObjectiveBetween 2016 and 2017, a population-based preconception expanded carrier screening (PECS) test was developed in the Netherlands during a pilot study. It was subsequently made possible in mid-2018 for couples to ask to have such a PECS test from specially trained general practitioners (GPs). Research has described GPs as crucial in offering PECS tests, but little is known about the GPs’ views on PECS and their experiences of providing this test. This article presents a thematic analysis of the PECS practice from the perspective of GPs and a bioethical discussion of the empirical results.DesignEmpirical bioethics. A thematic analysis of qualitative semi-structured interviews was conducted, and is combined with an ethical/philosophical discussion.SettingThe Netherlands.Participants7 Dutch GPs in the Netherlands, interviewed in 2019–2020.ResultsTwo themes were identified in the thematic analysis: ‘Choice and its complexity’ and ‘PECS as prompting existential concerns’. The empirical bioethics discussion showed that the first theme highlights that several areas coshape the complexity of choice on PECS, and the need for shared relational autonomous decision-making on these areas within the couple. The second theme highlights that it is not possible to analyse the existential issues raised by PECS solely on the level of the couple or family. A societal level must be included, since these levels affect each other. We refer to this as ‘entangled existential genetics’.ConclusionThe empirical bioethical analysis leads us to present two practical implications. These are: (1) training of GPs who are to offer PECS should cover shared relational autonomous decision-making within the couple and (2) more attention should be given to existential issues evoked by genetic considerations, also during the education of GPs and in bioethical discussions around PECS.

Developing new ways to listen: the value of narrative approaches in empirical (bio)ethics

The use of qualitative research in empirical bioethics is becoming increasingly popular, but its implementation comes with several challenges, such as difficulties in aligning moral epistemology and methods. In this paper, we describe some problems that empirical bioethics researchers may face; these problems are related to a tension between the different poles on the spectrum of scientific paradigms, namely a positivist and interpretive stance. We explore the ideas of narrative construction, ‘genres’ in medicine and dominant discourses in relation to empirical research. We also reflect on the loss of depth and context that may occur with thematic or content analyses of interviews, and discuss the need for transparency about methodologies in empirical bioethics. Drawing on insights from narrative approaches in the social sciences and the clinical-educational discipline of Narrative Medicine, we further clarify these problems and suggest a narrative approach to qualitative interviewing in empirical bioethics that enables researchers to ‘listen (and read) in new ways’. We then show how this approach was applied in the first author’s research project about euthanasia decision-making. In addition, we stress the important ethical task of scrutinizing methodologies and meta-ethical standpoints, as they inevitably impact empirical outcomes and corresponding ethical judgments. Finally, we raise the question whether a ‘diagnostic’, rather than a ‘problem-solving’, mindset could and should be foregrounded in empirical ethics, albeit without losing a commitment to ethics’ normative task, and suggest further avenues for theorizing about listening and epistemic (in)justice in relation to empirical (bio)ethics.

Digital bioethics: introducing new methods for the study of bioethical issues

The online space has become a digital public square, where individuals interact and share ideas on the most trivial to the most serious of matters, including discussions of controversial ethical issues in science, technology and medicine. In the last decade, new disciplines like computational social science and social data science have created methods to collect and analyse such data that have considerably expanded the scope of social science research. Empirical bioethics can benefit from the integration of such digital methods to investigate novel digital phenomena and trace how bioethical issues take shape online.Here, using concrete examples, we demonstrate how novel methods based on digital approaches in the social sciences can be used effectively in the domain of bioethics. We show that a digital turn in bioethics research aligns with the established aims of empirical bioethics, integrating with normative analysis and expanding the scope of the discipline, thus offering ways to reinforce the capacity of bioethics to tackle the increasing complexity of present-day ethical issues in science and technology. We propose to call this domain of research in bioethics digital bioethics.

Understanding Global Challenges of Rapidly Developing Technologies: Digital Methods for Empirical Bioethics

"Since the first successful application of the gene editing method based on the CRISPR/Cas-system, the technology has demonstrated great potential but also sparked a series of ethical concerns. Some of the issues are already known from earlier gene editing debates. However, the possibility of CRISPR to target genes with high accuracy and the easy application that allows a biohacker to experiment with a simple toolkit ordered online have introduced new ethical challenges. Further, thanks to preprint servers such as bioRxiv, biomedical research results are more and more accessible with little delay after an experiment was conducted. This enables researchers all over the world to participate and conduct their own experiments, making it a global endeavour. Not only does this make it difficult to monitor and regulate the technology but also speeds up the technological development significantly.CRISPR is only one of many examples of recent advancements with potentially high consequences for society at large. We think it is therefore paramount to identify new issues, understand their nature and assess their impact in a timely manner. In this paper, we propose the integration of digital methods into the toolbox of modern empirical bioethics and demonstrate their potential with two examples: We used 1) crawling and network analysis for hypothesis building, and 2) sentiment analysis to assess the public’s attitudes towards CRISPR on Twitter over a six and a half years period. "