Article Text
PDFResponse
Why public funding for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) might still be wrong: a response to Bunnik and colleagues
Abstract
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 Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Introducing the non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of Down syndrome in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis
- 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 test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis
- Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis: progress and potential
- Why NIPT should be publicly funded
- 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
- Hostile environments? Down’s syndrome and genetic screening in contemporary culture
- ‘Is it better not to know certain things?’: views of women who have undergone non-invasive prenatal testing on its possible future applications