Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issues explored

This paper explores the ethical implications of introducing non-invasive prenatal diagnostic tests (NIPD tests) in prenatal screening for foetal abnormalities. NIPD tests are easy and safe and can be performed early in pregnancy. Precisely because of these features, it is feared that informed consent may become more difficult, that both testing and selective abortion will become ‘normalized'', and that there will be a trend towards accepting testing for minor abnormalities and non-medical traits as well. In our view, however, the real moral challenge of NIPD testing consists in the possibility of linking up a technique with these features (easy, safe and early) with new genomic technologies that allow prenatal diagnostic testing for a much broader range of abnormalities than is the case in current procedures. An increase in uptake and more selective abortions need not in itself be taken to signal a thoughtless acceptance of these procedures. However, combining this with considerably enlarging the scope of NIPD testing will indeed make informed consent more difficult and challenge the notion of prenatal screening as serving reproductive autonomy. If broad NIPD testing includes later-onset diseases, the ‘right not to know'' of the future child will become a new issue in the debate about prenatal screening. With regard to the controversial issue of selective abortion, it may make a morally relevant difference that after NIPD testing, abortion can be done early. A lower moral status may be attributed to the foetus at that moment, given the dominant opinion that the moral status of the foetus progressively increases with its development.Since the discovery of cell-free foetal DNA/RNA (cffDNA/RNA) in maternal plasma in 1997,¹ the possibility to use this cffDNA/RNA for non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) has been investigated many times.^{2, 3, 4, 5, 6} cffDNA/RNA can be obtained from a maternal blood sample, as early as 4 weeks of gestation,⁷ but currently only reliably so from 7 weeks of gestation.⁴ This development holds the promise of NIPD testing early in pregnancy and without the small, but significant risk of foetal loss that the current invasive procedures of chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis (AP) carry. NIPD testing for the determination of a Y-signal for pregnancies at risk of X-linked disorders and for diagnosis of Rhesus factor status in RhD-negative women is now being translated into clinical practice.⁴ In many European countries, discussion about broader applications of NIPD testing can be expected in the coming years.^{8, 9} The feasibility of NIPD for trisomy 21, 13 and 18 has already been shown,² but large-scale independent studies are still needed. Sex-chromosomal abnormalities (eg, Turner syndrome (X0) and triple X syndrome (XXX)) could in principle be diagnosed by NIPD testing as well,⁴ if reliable quantitative tests become available in the future and the maternal ‘background'' can be excluded from testing. Even if accurate NIPD testing for the mentioned abnormalities becomes possible, the clinical utility of the test remains to be assessed. This includes balancing the benefits to the harms also with regard to its psychological, ethical, legal, social and economic implications.^{10, 11} The possible ethical implications of NIPD as a new approach to prenatal testing have so far been reviewed in a few publications.^{4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17} Apart from clear benefits related to avoiding the miscarriage risk of present invasive methods, important potential drawbacks have been mentioned as well. For one thing, proper counselling and informed consent is argued to become more challenging when offering NIPD testing. Moreover, there is a concern that the ease and safety of NIPD may lead to prenatal screening being increasingly conceived as a matter of course, both by those making the offer and by the women undergoing the test. Related to this is the concern that selective abortion of foetuses with minor abnormalities, the wrong sex or unwanted paternity, will become normalized.This paper aims to expand and refine these ethical evaluations and will add some new ethical perspectives with regard to possible implications of NIPD at present and in the future.In our view, it is not so much the fact that foetal material used for prenatal testing can be obtained early and non-invasively (allowing easy and safe testing) that would lead to moral challenges. Rather, it is the fact that a technology with these features would be open to being used for testing a potentially much broader range of abnormalities than those included in the presently used method of microscopic chromosome analysis (karyotyping).Although NIPD testing can also be applied in high genetic-risk families and for the management of pregnancy, the focus of this paper will primarily be on the application of NIPD testing in the screening context. The reason for this focus on prenatal screening is that in the near future, the question if, and if so, in what way NIPD testing is to be applied within prenatal screening strategies should be considered and discussed by policy makers, health care professionals and society at large.To avoid confusion, a preliminary remark is needed on terminology. In medicine, ‘screening'' is often used as referring to a kind of test for risk assessment or disease discovery. However, after the convention in normative and regulatory discourse, we will use ‘screening'' as referring to any systematic and unsolicited offer of predictive testing (using whatever types of test) involving individuals who themselves have no reason (yet) to seek medical help for the condition in question.¹⁸ In this broader sense, screening stands in contrast to ‘diagnosis'' as testing on indication.