Article Text
Abstract
Asking pregnant women to (co)pay for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) out of pocket leads to unequal access across socioeconomic strata. To avoid these social justice issues, first-trimester prenatal screening should be publicly funded in countries such as the Netherlands, with universal coverage healthcare systems that offer all other antenatal care services and screening programmes free of charge. In this reply, we offer three additional reasons for public funding of NIPT. First, NIPT may not primarily have medical utility for women and children, but rather offers relevant information and reproductive options, and thus serves important autonomy interests of women. Second, public funding of NIPT can be justified because it results in a reduction of collectively borne costs associated with care and support for children with chromosomal abnormalities. It is important to note that this is not an argument for individual women to take part in screening or to terminate an affected pregnancy. However, it is a legitimate argument in policy making regarding funding arrangements for screening programmes. Finally, public funding would help to amend current misunderstandings among pregnant women (eg, that they are not at risk), and thus to support informed consent for first-trimester prenatal screening.
- autonomy
- genetic screening/testing
- interests of woman/fetus/father
- public policy
- reproductive medicine
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors All authors were involved in devising the reply. EMB drafted the manuscript. AK-K, IdB and R-JHG revised it for important intellectual content. All authors approved of the final version of the manuscript.
Funding This study was funded by ZonMw (70-73000-98-116).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
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
- Expansion of non-invasive prenatal screening to the screening of 10 types of chromosomal anomalies: a cost-effectiveness analysis
- ‘Is it better not to know certain things?’: views of women who have undergone non-invasive prenatal testing on its possible future applications
- Preserving women’s reproductive autonomy while promoting the rights of people with disabilities?: the case of Heidi Crowter and Maire Lea-Wilson in the light of NIPT debates in England, France and Germany
- 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