Why public funding for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) might still be wrong: a response to Bunnik and colleagues

Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (11):781-782 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1136/medethics-2019-105885

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Should pregnant women be charged for non-invasive prenatal screening? Implications for reproductive autonomy and equal access.Eline M. Bunnik, Adriana Kater-Kuipers, Robert-Jan H. Galjaard & Inez D. de Beaufort - 2020 - Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (3):194-198.
Should Non-Invasiveness Change Informed Consent Procedures for Prenatal Diagnosis?Zuzana Deans & Ainsley J. Newson - 2011 - Health Care Analysis 19 (2):122-132.
A burden from birth? Non‐invasive prenatal testing and the stigmatization of people with disabilities.Giovanni Rubeis & Florian Steger - 2018 - Bioethics 33 (1):91-97.
A new era in prenatal testing: are we prepared? [REVIEW]Dagmar Schmitz - 2013 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 16 (3):357-364.
For Your Interest? The Ethical Acceptability of Using Non‐Invasive Prenatal Testing to Test ‘Purely for Information’.Zuzana Deans, Angus J. Clarke & Ainsley J. Newson - 2014 - Bioethics 29 (1):19-25.
Ethics of routine: a critical analysis of the concept of ‘routinisation’ in prenatal screening.Adriana Kater-Kuipers, Inez D. de Beaufort, Robert-Jan H. Galjaard & Eline M. Bunnik - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (9):626-631.
The New Genetics and Informed Consent: Differentiating Choice to Preserve Autonomy.Eline M. Bunnik, Antina Jong, Niels Nijsingh & Guido M. W. R. Wert - 2013 - Bioethics 27 (6):348-355.
Prenatal Testing, Reproductive Autonomy, and Disability Interests.Rosamund Scott - 2005 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 14 (1):65-82.
Prenatal Screening: An Ethical Agenda for the Near Future.Antina Jong & Guido M. W. R. Wert - 2014 - Bioethics 29 (1):46-55.
Eugenics and Mandatory Informed Prenatal Genetic Testing: A Unique Perspective from China.Zhang Di, Vincent H. Ng, Zhaochen Wang, Xiaomei Zhai & Reidar K. Lie - 2015 - Developing World Bioethics 16 (2):107-115.
“The Ethics of Genetic Testing”.G. T. Roche - 2013 - In Roy G. Beran (ed.), Legal and Forensic Medicine. Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 1519- 1533..
Enjeux éthiques des tests anténataux à l'époque contemporaine: L'apport 'une approche conséquentialiste.Marie Gaille - 2019 - Canadian Journal of Bioethics/Revue canadienne de bioéthique 2 (1):29-36.
Book review: Erik Parens and Adrienne Asch. Prenatal testing: A review of prenatal testing and disability rights, Washington, D.c.: Georgetown university press, 2000; and rayna Rapp. Testing women, testing the fetus: The social impact of amniocentesis in America. [REVIEW]Mary Briody Mahowald - 2004 - Hypatia 19 (3):216-221.
Prenatal genetic testing kits sold at your local pharmacy: Promoting autonomy or promoting confusion?Lucy Modra - 2006 - Bioethics 20 (5):254–263.
Non‐Invasive Testing, Non‐Invasive Counseling.Rachel Rebouché - 2015 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 43 (2):228-240.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-11-13

Downloads
21 (#715,461)

6 months
10 (#257,583)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Dagmar Schmitz
Aachen University of Technology

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Add more references