Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Why public funding for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) might still be wrong: a response to Bunnik and colleagues
  1. Dagmar Schmitz
  1. Department of History, Theory and Ethics in Medicine, Medical School, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Dr Dagmar Schmitz, Department of History, Theory and Ethics in Medicine, Medical School, RWTH Aachen University, 52074 Aachen, Germany; daschmitz{at}


Bunnik and colleagues argued that financial barriers do not promote informed decision-making prior to prenatal screening and raise justice concerns. If public funding is provided, however, it would seem to be important to clarify its intentions and avoid any unwarranted appearance of a medical utility of the testing.

  • genetic counselling/prenatal diagnosis

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors DS is the sole author of this paper. She is a physician and clinical ethicist with a special interest in ethical aspects at the beginning of life. She also worked as a genetic counsellor and supported pregnant women and couples after prenatal testing. Since 2013, she is an appointed member of the Commission on Genetic Testing (GEKO) in Germany. This article reflects the personal opinion of the author exclusively.

  • Funding The author has not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • Response
    Eline Maria Bunnik Adriana Kater-Kuipers Robert-Jan H Galjaard Inez de Beaufort

Other content recommended for you