ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2017
Qualifying choice: ethical reflection on the scope of prenatal screening.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Perceptions of patients and stakeholders on a prenatal sickle cell disease screening and its results among tribal populations of Gujarat: a participatory mixed-method research.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Healthcare professionals' experiences with expanded noninvasive prenatal screening: challenges and solutions.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- The risk of normative bias in reporting empirical research: lessons learned from prenatal screening studies about the prominence of acknowledged limitations.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2023Article
- Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for "Non-Medical" Traits: Ensuring Consistency in Ethical Decision-Making.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023Article
- Decision-making process about prenatal genetic screening: how deeply do moms-to-be want to know from Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing?BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Is routine prenatal screening and testing fundamentally incompatible with a commitment to reproductive choice? Learning from the historical context.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021Article
- Should pregnant women be charged for non-invasive prenatal screening? Implications for reproductive autonomy and equal access.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- Prenatal Diagnosis for Primary Immunodeficiency Disorders-An Overview of the Indian Scenario.Frontiers in immunology · 2020Review
- A Capabilities Approach to Prenatal Screening for Fetal Abnormalities.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2019Article
- Just choice: a Danielsian analysis of the aims and scope of prenatal screening for fetal abnormalities.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2019Article
- Women's perspectives on the ethical implications of non-invasive prenatal testing: a qualitative analysis to inform health policy decisions.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
- Noninvasive prenatal testing to analyze the fetal genome.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the near future developments in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) may soon provide couples with the opportunity to test for and diagnose a much broader range of heritable and congenital conditions than has previously been possible. Inevitably, this has prompted much ethical debate on the possible implications of NIPT for providing couples with opportunities for reproductive choice by way of routine prenatal screening. In view of the possibility to test for a significantly broader range of genetic conditions with NIPT, the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) and American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) recommend that, pending further debate, prenatal screening for reproductive choice should only be offered where concerning serious congenital conditions and childhood disorders. In support of this recommendation, the ESHG and ASHG discuss a number of ethical issues on which they prompt further debate: the informational privacy of the future child, the trivialization of abortion, the risk of information overload, and issues of distributive justice. This paper responds to this call with further reflection on each ethical issue and how it relates to the moral justification of providing couples with opportunities for meaningful reproductive choice. The paper concludes that whilst there may be good reasons for qualifying the scope of any unsolicited prenatal screening offer to serious congenital conditions and childhood disorders, if prenatal screening is justified for providing couples with opportunities for meaningful reproductive choice, then health services may have obligations to empower couples with the same opportunity where concerning other conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.