Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 May;87(2):206-217.
doi: 10.1177/0024363919886515. Epub 2019 Nov 7.

Prenatal Genetic Screening and Potential Complicity in Abortion: Considerations for Catholic Health Care

Affiliations

Prenatal Genetic Screening and Potential Complicity in Abortion: Considerations for Catholic Health Care

Carolyn A Laabs. Linacre Q. 2020 May.

Abstract

Prenatal genetic screening (PGS) is commonplace in the United States and in some parts of the world. The commonly held rationale for screening is to respect patient autonomy and to either allow the mother the opportunity to prepare herself to parent a child with a genetic disorder or to abort. As a result, PGS combined with prenatal diagnostic testing followed by abortion has significantly reduced the number of babies born with Down syndrome, for example, and, furthermore, has raised concerns about discrimination against persons with disabilities and eugenics. Although Catholic teaching clearly prohibits PGS and testing when undertaken with the intention of abortion, screening routinely is performed in Catholic health care, sometimes without regard to intent. This essay explores the issue of PGS in Catholic health care and suggests the development of a policy designed to support morally legitimate use of screening through an educational and informed consent process and attestation as to intent so as to prevent abortion or at least avoid complicity in it. Although the issue applies to prenatal testing as well as screening and for a variety of disorders as well as gender, this essay limits itself to a discussion of first trimester screening and a focus on Down syndrome. Objections to such a policy are discussed.

Keywords: Abortion; Catholic health care; Cooperation; Down syndrome; Eugenics; Prenatal genetic screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists). 2016. “Practice Bulletin No 163: Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy.” Obstetrics & Gynecology 127, no. 5 (May): 1–15. https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2016/05000/Practice_Bulle.... - PubMed
    1. Allen Jill Fonda, Stoll Katie, Bernhardt Barbara. 2016. “Pre and Post-test Counseling for Chromosomal and Mendelian Disorders.” Seminars in Perinatology 40 no. 1 (February): 44–55. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4826755/pdf/nihms739723.pdf. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Benedict XVI. 2012. “On the Service of Charity.” Apostolic Letter, November 11 http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_b....
    1. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 1997. 2nd ed Part 3 Life in Christ: 1691-2557 Vatican City: Vatican Press.
    1. CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). 1987. Donum Vitae, Instructions on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day: I. Respect for Human Embryos (February 22): 2 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_....

LinkOut - more resources