Diocese of Covington - ProLife at PO Box 15550, Covington, KY 41015 US - Prenatal Genetic Testing

          

PGT is performed to determine the presence of various defects in a baby prior to birth. There are two types of PGT: screening and diagnostic. Screen tests are non-invasive and pose virtually no risk to the mother or baby. They do not diagnose problems with certainty, but rather signal whether an abnormality may exist, in which case further testing may be considered. 

 

Diagnostic PGT procedures are invasive, requiring the use of a needle or catheter to collect a sample of fluid or tissue surrounding the developing baby. While much more accurate than screen PGTs, diagnostic PGTs cannot measure the severity of birth defects and pose significantly greater risks to the mother and child. Risks include infection, premature rupture of membranes, and even miscarriage.

 

Aside from these risks, many people perceive the moral nature of PGT to be neutral; any ethical questions relate to how we use the information it reveals. What problem could there be with giving parents information concerning their developing child? Isn’t it good for families to be able to plan for a baby with a genetic disorder? 

 

Indeed, the Catholic Church teaches that PGT is permitted as long as the method employed “safeguard[s] the life and integrity of the embryo and the mother, without subjecting them to disproportionate risks” (Donum Vitae). Even a degree of risk can be “justified by a truly urgent need for the diagnosis and by the importance of the results that can be achieved by it for the benefit of the unborn child himself” (Donum Vitae).

 

Thus, few were surprised by the 2007 recommendation of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to screen all pregnancies for fetal chromosomal abnormalities, including Down syndrome. However, the problem with this widespread promotion of PGT becomes immediately evident when one examines its strong link with the termination of human life for eugenic purposes. In the United States today, for example, between 84% and 91% of babies thought to have Down syndrome are aborted.

 

This high abortion rate associated with positive diagnoses is a natural fruit of the logic built into the testing itself. When scientific progress is measured only by the lessening of adverse conditions, human suffering must be terminated at all costs — even the cost of human life. Anyone who is weak, dependent, or needy becomes a drain on society and must be eliminated. This worldview is what John Paul II called “the culture of death.”  

 

Universal PGT, as recommended by ACOG, would certainly further the anti-life tendencies in our culture. All women would know whether they are carrying an “abnormal” child and, if so, would be encouraged to abort. Inevitably, parents who chose not to abort would be considered irresponsible, selfish, and unworthy of the help of the broader community, having imposed this burden upon themselves. Thus, genetically abnormal children and their families would effectively become pariahs — a new class of lepers. 

 

Furthermore, with testing becoming evermore precise, parents may soon be offered the option to test for IQ, proclivity for other diseases, and more. Parents will face intense pressure to deliver only the most potentially productive and desired members of society.

 

Granted, PGT can be used for good. Recent news accounts celebrate Scott and Elizabeth Miller, who knew they were predisposed to high-risk pregnancies after suffering two miscarriages. When a recent PGT yielded a diagnosis of Down syndrome, the Millers welcomed this as given an opportunity to prepare for a child with special needs by seeking out information and community support. 

 

Sadly, not every woman who has PGT will respond to an adverse diagnosis by embracing life. In a fragile position she may make a decision that she will later regret. She will also have denied her community the opportunity to heed the call to love Christ in his most distressing disguise.

 

Indeed, over and above their inherent worth, persons with special needs serve as an antidote to our culture’s preoccupation with efficiency and power. They remind us of our utter dependence upon others and the centrality of love to our existence. 

 

 

Census data and medical research show a rise in sex-selection abortions favoring sons, and so-called pregnancy reduction (selective abortion of less desirable siblings) is now routinely advised for multiple pregnancies. We see more and more evidence that parents want designer babies, a product tailored in advance, with the right to reject “imperfect” children.

 

Some have even resorted to the courts, suing their physicians for “wrongful birth.” In such cases parents of children born with birth defects allege culpable negligence, contending that the doctor’s failure to diagnose the problem prenatally deprived them of the opportunity to procure an abortion. After all, a doctor who fails to conduct screening for genetic abnormalities is ignoring the explicit recommendation of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

 

“Wrongful birth” cases are banned in some states, where courts and legislatures point out that failure to diagnose in no way causes a child’s impairments. However, many cases have been successfully litigated. In July 2007 a Florida jury awarded $21 million to a couple whose second child had the same genetic syndrome as their first child. They said that if their doctor had run a prenatal test, they would have had an abortion to avoid more financial and emotional costs.

 

Such juries embrace today’s culture of death. They effectively assert that children with disabilities should never be born. They consider the doctor to have no duty to the unborn child. They dismiss the value of persons with special needs. Worst, they pressure doctors to mandate prenatal genetic testing and to encourage abortion in order to avoid lawsuits.