Responding to the FDA Warning and ACOG Statement on NIPT Implications of Prenatal Screening for Down Syndrome in an Evolving Landscape

Abstract

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) has become a popular standard of prenatal care as a screening method for Trisomy 21 (Down syndrome). However, there are many shortcomings of the test -- both scientific and ethical. This research paper critically examines the implications of NIPT, arguing against its moral permissibility as a standard test for Down syndrome, even though the FDA and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists continue to support its use. 

Scientifically, false positives associated with NIPT raise doubts about the accuracy of results and the subsequent decisions made based on them. Moreover, the responses triggered by NIPT outcomes often lead to actions that are either scientifically impossible or ethically impermissible.

Ethically, natural rights and utilitarian theories can be seen as justifications for NIPT. A common thread among these theories and proponents for NIPT is freedom and autonomy. However, liberty based on faulty information is not true freedom nor respect - it is demeaning. Drawing upon natural law theory and Kantianism, I support the argument against NIPT. I demonstrate how NIPT violates the principle of double effect (PDE) within natural law theory and emphasize the importance of human dignity for individuals with Down syndrome from a Kantian perspective.

Ultimately, I will call for a more nuanced approach to prenatal care decision-making that respects principles of accuracy, autonomy, and human dignity for all.