Artikkelen undersøker hvordan NIPT ble vedtatt implementert i det norske fosterdiagnostiske systemet gjennom en fagligpolitisk prosess mellom 2012 og 2017. Prosessen innebar at Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter for helsetjenesten, Helsedirektoratet, Bioteknologirådet og Helse- og Omsorgsdepartementet ga sine vurderinger av testen og sine råd omkring en eventuell innføring. Artikkelen viser at det i denne prosessen foregikk en forsiktig tilnærming eller sammensmelting mellom de tradisjonelt helt ulike måtene å forstå og å ramme inn fosterdiagnostikk på i Norge, dvs. i en ‘autonomi/ behandlingsramme’ og en (...) ‘sorteringsramme’. Artikkelen argumenterer videre for at denne tilnærmingen eller konvergensen var mulig fordi prosessen ble holdt innenfor de fagligpolitiske byråkratiene, og de ulike etatene var innstilt på å ‘samarbeide’ om å inkludere både kunnskap og verdier fra begge rammene i sine tilrådninger. Politikk for fosterdiagnostikk er imidlertid et svært politisk betent område i Norge, og denne konvergensen var et skjørt byggverk. Den sprakk da også opp i løpet av tre uker i mai 2020, da Fremskrittspartiet plutselig inngikk et ‘bioteknologiforlik’ med Arbeiderpartiet og SV etter at de hadde gått ut av Solbergregjeringen. Dermed endte spørsmålet om implementeringen av NIPT i Stortinget, hvor konvergensen i den fagpolitiske prosessen ble erstattet av de tradisjonelle frontene, og de gamle innrammingene igjen ble ‘satt i arbeid’. Artikkelen diskuterer avslutningsvis kort de bortimot uløselige dilemmaene disse innrammingene både representerer og produserer. Nøkkelord: NIPT, fosterdiagnostikk, humanmedisinsk bioteknologi, regulering English Title: Fetal diagnostics between medicine and ethics: Implementation of Prenatal Invasive Testing in a turbulent policy area: The article examines how the decision to implement Prenatal Invasive Testing in the Norwegian Fetal Diagnostic System was reached through a professional policy process between 2012 and 2017. The process involved the Norwegian Research Centre for Health Services, the Norwegian Directorate of Health, the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board and the Ministry of Health and Care Services, which provided their individual assessments and advice regarding the potential implementation of the test. The article finds that a careful convergence took place between traditionally opposing ways to understand and frame fetal diagnostics in Norway – either as a ‘treatment frame’ or a ‘sorting frame’. The article further argues that this convergence was possible because the process was kept within these bureaucracies, and that the different agencies were willing to collaborate to include knowledge and values from both frames in their recommendations. However, policy for fetal diagnostics is a very turbulent political area in Norway, and this convergence was a fragile construction. During three weeks in May 2020, the convergence collapsed when the Norwegian Progress Party suddenly entered a “biotechnology settlement” with the Labour Party and the Socialist Left Party after exiting the conservative Government coalition. Hence, the question of implementing NIPT ended up in the Norwegian Parliament, where the convergence from the professional policy process was replaced by the traditional fronts, and the old framings were again set in motion. Lastly, the article briefly discusses the almost unsolvable dilemmas these framings both produce and represent. Keywords: NIPT, non-invasive prenatal testing, fetal diagnostics, medical biotechnology, regulation. (shrink)

Analyser av cellefritt DNA fra foster i gravide kvinners blod gir nye muligheter innen fosterdiagnostikk: Testene er bedre enn eksisterende tester, de reduserer risikoen og er billigere. Flere land har tatt i bruk disse testene, og Helsedirektoratet i Norge har mottatt søknad om å ta i bruk en test som erstatter tidlig ultralyd og blodprøver. Likevel nøler norske myndigheter. Hvorfor gjør de det? Ett av svarene er at non-invasive prenatale tester fører med seg en rekke faglige og moralske spørsmål og (...) gir flere grunnleggende etiske utfordringer. Denne artikkelen gjennomgår et bredt knippe av de utfordringene som NIPT reiser. Hensikten er å synliggjøre hvorfor NIPT påkaller etisk refleksjon og å bidra til en åpen debatt og en transparent beslutningsprosess. Artikkelen identifiserer fem sentrale og konkrete spørsmål for vurderingen av NIPT.Nøkkelord: non-invasiv prenatal diagnostikk, testing, fravalg, foster, blodprøve, ekspressivisme, statsliberalt dilemma, dilemma, abort, retten til ikke å viteEnglish summary: Ethical challenges with non-invasive prenatal tests Non-invasive prenatal testing performed with the use of massively parallel sequencing of cell-free DNA in maternal plasma gives extended possibilities in prenatal screening. The tests are claimed to be better than existing alternative tests, they reduce the risk, and it is claimed they are cheaper. They have been used in several countries since 2012, and the University Hospital of North Norway has applied to the Directorate of Health to replace first trimester ultrasound and plasma screening with NIPT. The Directorate of Health is reluctant to reply. Why is this? One of the answers may be that NIPT raises a series of professional and moral questions, and poses profound ethical challenges. This article reviews a series of the challenges with NIPT. The aim is to highlight why NIPT calls for ethical reflection and to contribute to an open debate and a transparent decision-making process. The article identifies five major questions to address in the assessment of NIPT: What are the criteria for screening and removing certain conditions? How certain do we have to be that these conditions do appear in living children? How should we handle information from NIPT for living persons? How can we avoid that persons with the conditions that are selected for screening and removal are insulted, stigmatized, or discriminated? How can we avoid that systematic screening and removal of fetuses with certain conditions develop norms and values that breach with basic social or ethical principles? (shrink)

This article assesses the similarity and difference between the Western European style of doing bioethics and the Scandinavian one. First, it reviews the introductory article by the editor, C. Delkeskamp-Hayes in the first issue of Christian Bioethics (2008), devoted to the possibility of a specifically Christian bioethics in Europe. Second, it analyses bioethics debates in Scandinavian today. In light of Delkeskamp-Hayes' article, the main similarity is that both regions are facing secularization as a threat to basic Christian values, for example, (...) to the Christian view of the sanctity and dignity of the human life. But the Scandinavian tends to reduce Christian bioethics to Luther's concept of the worldly kingdom, supposed to foster a dialogue between Christians and non-Christians on controversial ethical issues. Despite the positive value of the dialogue, this strategy renders Christian ethics powerless. Third, from an evangelical theological standpoint, it proposes some strategies for enhancing the influence of Christian commitments on bioethical laws and policies. (shrink)