LEGAL RESTRICTIONS DURING PRENATAL GENETIC SCREENING PROCEDURE IN RUSSIA AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES

Introduction. Active developing sphere of medical services in the field of pregnancy management in Russia requires adequate and timely legal regulation. An important element of the pregnancy management process is perinatal diagnosis, which involves both conventional procedures - perinatal screening (biochemical blood analysis, ultrasound), and special - genetic screening (invasive and non-invasive). In this regard, the issue of a clear and effective legal regulation of genetic research in the framework of perinatal diagnosis and the further use of the results in this area is particularly acute. Aim of the work is to develop restrictions during the prenatal diagnostic procedure. Research objectives: knowledge of the various fundamental terms of this field, analysis of the functioning of the above aspect both in Russia and in foreign countries; identification of positive and negative aspects lobbying for the conduct of this procedure. Results. In many foreign countries for physicians, geneticists and potential parents established a fairly strict framework for perinatal diagnosis, due to the fact that this procedure can be used not only to prevent the birth of patients with hereditary diseases of children, but also for other purposes, dictated by social or cultural factors (e.g., justification of abortion, genome testing for social or psychological characteristics). Discussion. Such use of modern medical technologies will contradict the existing ideas about bioethics, which raises the question of the purpose of introducing stricter legal restrictions on the use of these technologies. A unified concept of legal regulation of genetic research in the framework of perinatal diagnostics with its subsequent implementation in practice is needed. Conclusions. It is necessary to design a Russian Federal law that provides a multifaceted legal regulation of the procedure of perinatal diagnosis, the main emphasis of which should be directed precisely to the modeling and interpretation of the limitations and conditions of this medical procedure.

1. Cavadino A., Morris J.K. Revised estimates of the risk of fetal loss following a prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 13 or trisomy 18. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 2017; 173(4): 953-8. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.38123

2. Ovchinskiy V.S. Criminology and biotechnology. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. 2005; (1): 82-4. (in Russian)

3. Kenny C.S. Outlines of Criminal Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1947

4. Corveleyn A., Morris M.A., Dequeker E., Sermon K., Davies J.L., Antiñolo G., et al. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis in Europe. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2008; 16(3): 290-9. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201976

5. Korochkin L.I., ed. Genome, Cloning, Human Origin [Genom, klonirovanie, proiskhozhdenie cheloveka]. Fryazino: Vek 2; 2004: 177-9. (in Russian)

6. Gubernatorov E., Kostina E. A region with a high level of genetic disease has been discovered in Russia. Available at: https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/5a181d139a79471217133d36 (in Russian)

7. Scarciolla O., Brancati F., Valente E.M., Ferraris A., De Angelis M.V., Valbonesi S., et al. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification assay for simultaneous detection of Parkinson’s disease gene rearrangement. Mov. Disord. 2007; 22(15): 2274-8. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.21532

8. Singleton A.B., Farrer M.J., Bonifati V. The genetics of Parkinson’s disease: progress and therapeutic implications. Mov. Disord. 2013; 28(1): 14-23. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.25249

9. Summar M.L., Thoene J.G. Screening Newborns’ DNA. Why Not? Medscape. 2015.

10. Le Blanc L.J. The Convention on the Rights of the Child: United Nations Lawmaking on Human Rights. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press-Lincoln; 1995.

11. Law No. 194 of 22 May 1978 on the social protection of motherhood and the voluntary termination of pregnancy. Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana. 1978; (140, Part I): 3642-6.

12. Lo C.H., Vunnam N., Lewis A.K., Chiu T.L., Brummel B.E., Schaaf T.M., et al. An Innovative High-Throughput Screening Approach for Discovery of Small Molecules That Inhibit TNF Receptors. 2017. SLAS Discov. 2017; 22(8): 950-61. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2472555217706478

13. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Preconception gender selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertil. Steril. 2004; 82(Suppl. 1): S232-5.

14. Isasi R.M., Knoppers B.M. National Regulatory Frameworks Regarding Human Reproductive Genetic Testing. Preimplantation genetic Diagnosis. In: Prenatal Diagnosis. A Report for the Genetics and Public Policy Centre. Montreal: Genetics and Public Policy Center; 2006.

15. Serour G. Transcultural issues in gender selection. International Congress Series. 2004; 1266: 21-31.

16. Collins F.S. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2006.

17. Kim W.A. Simple pregnancy-related kidney disease screening method: Random proteinuria testing. Korean J. Intern. Med. 2017; 32(6): 996-7. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2017.341