Invasive prenatal testing is performed for a variety of reasons, but the most common indication is for genetic testing of the fetus. Although many times the information obtained from this type of testing results in selective termination of fetuses with genetic diagnoses, the information itself may be morally neutral. Should a Catholic healthcare provider be willing to perform invasive prenatal testing in the setting of uncertainty with respect to the patient's plans following a diagnosis of a genetic abnormality?
American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) Practice Bulletin. 2007a. Invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. Number 88, December 2007a.
2.
American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) Practice Bulletin. 2007b. Screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Number 77, January 2007b.
3.
BevisD.C.A., and ManeM.B.1952. The antenatal prediction of hemolytic disease of the newborn. Lancet259: 395–8.
4.
BrockD.J.H., and SutcliffeR.G.1972. Alpha-fetoprotein in the antenatal diagnosis of anencephaly and spina bifida. Lancet300: 197–9.
5.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). Donum vitae.
6.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). Instruction Dignitas personae (On Certain Bioethical Questions).
7.
EddlemanK.A., MaloneF.D., SullivanL., DukesK., BerkowitzR.L., KharbutliY., Flint PorterT., LuthyD.A., ComstockC.H., SaadeG.R., KlugmanS., DugoffL., CraigoS.D., Timor-TritschI.E., CarrS.R., WolfeH.M., and D'AltonM.E.2006. Pregnancy loss rates after midtrimester amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol108: 1067–72
8.
FuchsF., and RiisP.1956. Antenatal sex determination. Nature177: 330.
9.
GluckL., and KulovichM.V.1973. Lecithin-sphingomyelin ratios in amniotic fluid in normal and abnormal pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol115: 539–46.
MilunskyA., and LittlefieldJ.W.1972. The prenatal diagnosis of inborn errors of metabolism. Ann Rev Med23: 57–76.
13.
NadlerH.L.1968. Antenatal detection of hereditary disorders. Pediatrics42: 912.
14.
NadlerH.L., and GerbieA.B.1970. Role of amniocentesis in the intrauterine detection of genetic disorders. NEJM282: 596–9.
15.
PalcholczykT.2006. Temptations in prenatal testing, Making Sense Out of Bioethics, National Catholic Bioethics Center, August 2006.
16.
PellerA.J., WestgateM.N., and HolmesL.B.2004Trends in congenital malformations, 1974–1999: Effect of prenatal diagnosis and elective termination. Obstet Gynecol104: 957.
17.
ProchownickL.1877. Beitrage zur Leptre vom Fruchtwasser und seiner Entsehung. Arch Gynaekol11: 304.
18.
SgrecciaE.2012. Personalist bioethics. Philadelphia, PA: National Catholic Bioethics Center.
19.
SkotkoB.G., LevineS.P., and GoldsteinR.2011a. Self-perceptions from people with Down syndrome. Am J Med Genet A.10: 2360–9.
20.
SkotkoB.G., LevineS.P., and GoldsteinR.2011b. Having a son or daughter with Down syndrome: Perspectives from mothers and fathers. Am J Med Genet A10: 2335–7.
21.
SteeleM.W., and BregW.R.1966. Chromosome analysis of human amniotic fluid cells. Lancet287: 383–5.
22.
StollC., AlembikY., DottB., and RothM.P.2002. Impact of prenatal diagnosis on livebirth prevalence of children with congenital anomalies. Ann Genet45: 115.
23.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). 2009. Ethical and religious directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 5th edition. Washington, DC: USCCB.
