Author:

Keywords:

Hoger Instituut voor Gezinswetenschappen

Abstract:

In recent decades, the possibilities for non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) have greatly increased. It is expected that in the near future physicians will be able to diagnose hereditary and congenital defects in the unborn child without using current prenatal tests. Compared to the latter, NIPD has several medical and psychological benefits. There is no risk of pregnancy loss. It is safer and less painful for the pregnant woman. Moreover, it is more accurate and less expensive than the current prenatal screening tests; it can also be performed earlier in the pregnancy. These benefits allow physicians to conclude that NIPD is also ethically desirable. Still, NIPD awakens the ethical debate on prenatal diagnosis in general. Moreover, it gives rise to new ethical challenges. NIPD is basically non-invasive and thus clinically less conspicuous or exceptional. Physicians may be inclined to offer NIPD as a standard part of prenatal care, without enough attention to informed consent. As a result, parents participate in prenatal screening, even though the results may confront them with a decision they would have preferred to avoid. Due to an early and safe prenatal diagnosis, society may get less supportive of parents who choose to have disabled children. Therefore, some parents may feel forced into prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion, although this is contrary to what they would otherwise have chosen. The greatest challenge will be to adequately inform and counsel pregnant women and enable them to provide a true informed consent.