Health Care Analysis

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 122–132 | Cite as

Should Non-Invasiveness Change Informed Consent Procedures for Prenatal Diagnosis?

Original Article


Empirical evidence suggests that some health professionals believe consent procedures for the emerging technology of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) should become less rigorous than those currently used for invasive prenatal testing. In this paper, we consider the importance of informed consent and informed choice procedures for protecting autonomy in those prenatal tests which will give rise to a definitive result. We consider whether there is anything special about NIPD that could sanction a change to consent procedures for prenatal diagnosis or otherwise render informed decision-making less important. We accept the claim that the absence of risk of miscarriage to some extent lessens the gravity of the decision to test compared with invasive methods of testing. However, we also claim that the definitive nature of the information received, and the fact that the information can lead to decisions of great significance, makes NIPD an important choice. This choice should only be made by means of a rigorous and appropriately supported decision-making process (assuming that this is what the pregnant woman wants). We conclude that, on balance, consent procedures for NIPD should mirror those for invasive testing, albeit without the need to emphasise procedure-related risk.


Autonomy Decision making Informed choice Informed consent Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis Prenatal diagnosis 



Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis


Chorionic villus sampling


  1. 1.
    Benn, P. A., & Chapman, A. R. (2009). Practical and ethical considerations of noninvasive prenatal diagnosis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 301(20), 2154–2156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Jong, A., Dondorp, W. J., de Die-Smulders, C. E. M., Frints, S. G, M. & de Wert, G. M. W. R. (2009) Non-invasive prenatal testing: Ethical issues explored. European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication 2 December 2009; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.203.
  3. 3.
    Faden, R. R., & Beauchamp, T. L. (1986). A history and theory of informed consent. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    García, E., Timmermans, D. R. M., & van Leeuwen, E. (2009). Reconsidering prenatal screening: An empirical-ethical approach to understand moral dilemmas as a question of personal preference. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 410–414.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Getz, L., & Kirkengen, A. (2003). Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: Advancing technology, soft markers for fetal chromosomal aberrations, and unacknowledged ethical dilemmas. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 2045–2057.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hahn, S., & Chitty, L. S. (2008). Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: Current practice and future perspectives. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 20(2), 146–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marteau, T. M. (2009). Informed choice: A construct in search of a name. Edwards, A. & Elwyn, G. shared decision-making in health care: Achieving evidence-based patient choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Chap. 13).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marteau, T. M., Dormandy, E., & Michie, S. (2001). A measure of informed choice. Health Expectations, 4(2), 99–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2008) Antenatal Care: Routine Care for the Healthy Pregnant Woman Nice clinical guideline 62. Available at: [Viewed 08/09/09].
  10. 10.
    Newson, A. J. (2008). Ethical aspects arising from non-invasive fetal diagnosis. Seminars in Fetal Neonatal Medicine, 13(2), 103–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    O’Neill, O. (2002). Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Neill, O. (2003). Some limits of informed consent. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 4–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Press, N., & Browner, C. H. (1995). Risk, autonomy, and responsibility: Informed consent for prenatal testing. Hastings Center Report, 25(3), S9–S12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. (2006). Amniocentesis: Consent Guide 6. Available at: [Viewed 08/09/09].
  15. 15.
    Schmitz, D., Netzer, C., & Henn, W. (2009). An offer you can’t refuse? Ethical implications of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis. Nature Reviews Genetics, 10, 515.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scully, J., Porz, R., & Rehmann-Sutter, C. (2007). You don’t make genetic test decisions from one day to the next—using time to preserve moral space. Bioethics, 2(14), 208–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van den Heuvel, A., et al. (2010). Will the introduction of non-invasive prenatal diagnostic testing erode informed choices? An Experimental Study of Health Care Professionals. Patient Education and Counseling, 78(1), 24–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vassy, C. (2006). From a genetic innovation to mass health programmes: The diffusion of down’s syndrome prenatal screening and diagnostic techniques in France. Social Science and Medicine, 63, 2041–2051.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wright, C. F., & Burton, H. (2009). The use of cell-free fetal nucleic acids in maternal blood for non-invasive prenatal diagnosis. Human Reproduction Update, 15(1), 139–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wright, C. F., & Chitty, L. S. (2009). Cell-free fetal DNA and RNA in maternal blood: Implications for safer antenatal testing. British Medical Journal, 339, b2451.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Ethics in Medicine, Department of Community Based MedicineUniversity of BristolCotham Hill, BristolUK

Personalised recommendations