Preimplantation genetic diagnosis

A systematic review of litigation in the face of new technology

Tochi Amagwula, Peter L. Chang, Amjad Hossain, Joey Tyner, Aimée L. Rivers, John Phelps

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To study legal cases against IVF facilities pertaining to preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) misdiagnosis. Design: Systematic case law review. Setting: University medical center using US legal databases. Patient(s): The IVF recipients using PGD services. Intervention(s): Lawsuits pertaining to PGD against IVF facilities. Main Outcome Measure(s): Lawsuits, court rulings, damage awards, and settlements pertaining to PGD after the birth of a child with a genetic defect. Result(s): Causes of action pertaining to PGD arise from negligence in performing the procedure as well as failure to properly inform patients of key information, such as inherent errors associated with the PGD process, a facility's minimal experience in performing PGD, and the option of obtaining PGD. Courts have sympathized with the financial burden involved in caring for children with disabilities. Monetary damage awards are based on the costs of caring for children with debilitating defects, including lifetime medical and custodial care. Conclusion(s): Facilities offering PGD services expose themselves to a new realm of liability in which damage awards can easily exceed the limits of a facility's insurance policy. Competent laboratory personnel and proper informed consent - with particular care to inform patients of the inherent inaccuracies of PGD - are crucial in helping deter liability.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1277-1282
Number of pages6
JournalFertility and Sterility
Volume98
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2012

Fingerprint

Preimplantation Diagnosis
Jurisprudence
Technology
Genetic Services
Custodial Care
Genetic Phenomena
Laboratory Personnel
Malpractice
Disabled Children
Insurance
Diagnostic Errors
Informed Consent
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Parturition
Databases

Keywords

  • informed consent
  • medical malpractice
  • negligence
  • Preimplantation genetic diagnosis
  • wrongful birth

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Reproductive Medicine

Cite this

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis : A systematic review of litigation in the face of new technology. / Amagwula, Tochi; Chang, Peter L.; Hossain, Amjad; Tyner, Joey; Rivers, Aimée L.; Phelps, John.

In: Fertility and Sterility, Vol. 98, No. 5, 11.2012, p. 1277-1282.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Amagwula, Tochi ; Chang, Peter L. ; Hossain, Amjad ; Tyner, Joey ; Rivers, Aimée L. ; Phelps, John. / Preimplantation genetic diagnosis : A systematic review of litigation in the face of new technology. In: Fertility and Sterility. 2012 ; Vol. 98, No. 5. pp. 1277-1282.
@article{73cb6dbfa0ae49d3b9a74601f678212f,
title = "Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: A systematic review of litigation in the face of new technology",
abstract = "Objective: To study legal cases against IVF facilities pertaining to preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) misdiagnosis. Design: Systematic case law review. Setting: University medical center using US legal databases. Patient(s): The IVF recipients using PGD services. Intervention(s): Lawsuits pertaining to PGD against IVF facilities. Main Outcome Measure(s): Lawsuits, court rulings, damage awards, and settlements pertaining to PGD after the birth of a child with a genetic defect. Result(s): Causes of action pertaining to PGD arise from negligence in performing the procedure as well as failure to properly inform patients of key information, such as inherent errors associated with the PGD process, a facility's minimal experience in performing PGD, and the option of obtaining PGD. Courts have sympathized with the financial burden involved in caring for children with disabilities. Monetary damage awards are based on the costs of caring for children with debilitating defects, including lifetime medical and custodial care. Conclusion(s): Facilities offering PGD services expose themselves to a new realm of liability in which damage awards can easily exceed the limits of a facility's insurance policy. Competent laboratory personnel and proper informed consent - with particular care to inform patients of the inherent inaccuracies of PGD - are crucial in helping deter liability.",
keywords = "informed consent, medical malpractice, negligence, Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, wrongful birth",
author = "Tochi Amagwula and Chang, {Peter L.} and Amjad Hossain and Joey Tyner and Rivers, {Aim{\'e}e L.} and John Phelps",
year = "2012",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.07.1100",
language = "English",
volume = "98",
pages = "1277--1282",
journal = "Fertility and Sterility",
issn = "0015-0282",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Preimplantation genetic diagnosis

T2 - A systematic review of litigation in the face of new technology

AU - Amagwula, Tochi

AU - Chang, Peter L.

AU - Hossain, Amjad

AU - Tyner, Joey

AU - Rivers, Aimée L.

AU - Phelps, John

PY - 2012/11

Y1 - 2012/11

N2 - Objective: To study legal cases against IVF facilities pertaining to preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) misdiagnosis. Design: Systematic case law review. Setting: University medical center using US legal databases. Patient(s): The IVF recipients using PGD services. Intervention(s): Lawsuits pertaining to PGD against IVF facilities. Main Outcome Measure(s): Lawsuits, court rulings, damage awards, and settlements pertaining to PGD after the birth of a child with a genetic defect. Result(s): Causes of action pertaining to PGD arise from negligence in performing the procedure as well as failure to properly inform patients of key information, such as inherent errors associated with the PGD process, a facility's minimal experience in performing PGD, and the option of obtaining PGD. Courts have sympathized with the financial burden involved in caring for children with disabilities. Monetary damage awards are based on the costs of caring for children with debilitating defects, including lifetime medical and custodial care. Conclusion(s): Facilities offering PGD services expose themselves to a new realm of liability in which damage awards can easily exceed the limits of a facility's insurance policy. Competent laboratory personnel and proper informed consent - with particular care to inform patients of the inherent inaccuracies of PGD - are crucial in helping deter liability.

AB - Objective: To study legal cases against IVF facilities pertaining to preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) misdiagnosis. Design: Systematic case law review. Setting: University medical center using US legal databases. Patient(s): The IVF recipients using PGD services. Intervention(s): Lawsuits pertaining to PGD against IVF facilities. Main Outcome Measure(s): Lawsuits, court rulings, damage awards, and settlements pertaining to PGD after the birth of a child with a genetic defect. Result(s): Causes of action pertaining to PGD arise from negligence in performing the procedure as well as failure to properly inform patients of key information, such as inherent errors associated with the PGD process, a facility's minimal experience in performing PGD, and the option of obtaining PGD. Courts have sympathized with the financial burden involved in caring for children with disabilities. Monetary damage awards are based on the costs of caring for children with debilitating defects, including lifetime medical and custodial care. Conclusion(s): Facilities offering PGD services expose themselves to a new realm of liability in which damage awards can easily exceed the limits of a facility's insurance policy. Competent laboratory personnel and proper informed consent - with particular care to inform patients of the inherent inaccuracies of PGD - are crucial in helping deter liability.

KW - informed consent

KW - medical malpractice

KW - negligence

KW - Preimplantation genetic diagnosis

KW - wrongful birth

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867746875&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867746875&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.07.1100

DO - 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.07.1100

M3 - Article

VL - 98

SP - 1277

EP - 1282

JO - Fertility and Sterility

JF - Fertility and Sterility

SN - 0015-0282

IS - 5

ER -