Other content recommended for you
- Should pregnant women be charged for non-invasive prenatal screening? Implications for reproductive autonomy and equal access
- Ethics of routine: a critical analysis of the concept of ‘routinisation’ in prenatal screening
- Introducing the non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of Down syndrome in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis
- Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis
- ‘Is it better not to know certain things?’: views of women who have undergone non-invasive prenatal testing on its possible future applications
- Women’s choices in non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy screening: results from a single centre prior to introduction in England
- Cell-free fetal DNA and RNA in maternal blood: implications for safer antenatal testing
- Uptake, outcomes, and costs of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for Down’s syndrome into NHS maternity care: prospective cohort study in eight diverse maternity units
- Ethical considerations for choosing between possible models for using NIPD for aneuploidy detection
- Comprehensive non-invasive prenatal screening for pregnancies with elevated risks of genetic disorders: protocol for a prospective, multicentre study
Jump to comment:
Medethics-2020-106709 – see decision 23-July-2020
NIPT is the only ethical test
Bunnik et al and Schmitz interchange about the public funding of NIPT surprisingly lacks consideration of Wilson’s and Jungner’s classic principles of screening as well as broader issues relating to women’s autonomy. In addition, overall healthcare costs must be considered no matter the system of their financing (public purse, private insurance or direct cost to families).
I have followed the interchange between Bunnik et al and Schmitz [1 – 3] because NIPT is a topic I have published on for 5 years now, most recently in English .Show More
The most important reason for making NIPT publicly funded and for it to replace First Trimester Combined (FTC) in screening is that NIPT is a much better test than FTC . According to the principles laid down by Wilson and Jungner in their classic essay , in this situation screening should be done with a test with as low a false negativity as possible so that the pregnant can truly trust the message that she does not carry a foetus with a genetic abnormality. NIPT misses far fewer cases than FTC and is a classic rule-out test.
Where it has been studied, the biggest unease with NIPT among pregnant women is the risk of sex-selection, that is that female foetuses are selectively aborted only because they are female [4, 6, 7]. Notwithstanding, Schmitz raises the spectre of “unease with NIPT causing discriminatory mes...