Announcements A Joint Statement on Technical, legal, ethical and implementation concerns regarding Aarogya Setu and other apps introduced during COVID-19 in India by Jan Swasthya Abhiyan (JSA), Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), Forum for Medical Ethics Society (FMES), and All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN)   |   Submission to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on behalf of Hub5 (HEaL Institute, APU, Seher-CHSJ, and IAPH) – COPASAH on human rights issues confronted by ASHAS and ANMs during the Covid-19 pandemic | Aug 7, 2020   |   Letter to MMC by FMES, PUCL-MH, FAOW, and MFC urging to restore its order suspending licenses of two doctors accused of abetting the suicide of Dr Payal Tadvi

Non-invasive prenatal testing: Special interest groups vs women’s autonomy

Lars H Breimer

DOI: 10.20529/IJME.2020.069


Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is moving the goalposts for the detection of genetic disorders such as Down Syndrome (DS). NIPT not only misses fewer cases than first trimester combined screening, but also has fewer false positive results. Unlike with neural tube defect (NTD) where screening to detect affected pregnancies was welcomed, NIPT for trisomy has met with surprising resistance. This paper argues that special interest groups have been allowed to usurp influence beyond what is balanced in the discussions, at the expense of the fight against sex selection. The fear of parents of children with DS, that their children’s rights might be devalued, must not trump the autonomy of pregnant women to decide what is best for their own family and what they can cope with emotionally and financially. Society, however, must ensure that resources for caring for those with DS and other disabilities remain adequate. Here, recent articles are also reviewed.

Keywords: NIPT, prenatal testing, Down Syndrome, trisomy, autonomy of pregnant women, children’s rights

Full Text





There are currently no refbacks.

Article Views

PDF Downloads

Click here to support US