Preserving women's reproductive autonomy while promoting the rights of people with disabilities?: the case of Heidi Crowter and Maire Lea-Wilson in the light of NIPT debates in England, France and Germany.
Decision Making
Disabilities
Ethics
Genetic Counseling
Prenatal Diagnosis
Journal
Journal of medical ethics
ISSN: 1473-4257
Titre abrégé: J Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7513619
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2023
Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
29
09
2021
accepted:
11
03
2022
medline:
26
6
2023
pubmed:
30
3
2022
entrez:
29
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
On July 2021, the UK High Court of Justice heard the Case CO/2066/2020 on the application of Heidi Crowter who lives with Down's syndrome, and Máire Lea-Wilson whose son Aidan has Down's syndrome. Crowter and Lea-Wilson, with the support of the disability rights campaign, 'Don't Screen Us Out', have been taking legal action against the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (the UK Government) for a review of the 1967 Abortion Act: the removal of section 1(1)(d) making termination of pregnancy lawful for 'severe' fetal indications detected after 24 weeks' gestation. On 23 September 2021, the High Court dismissed the claim. This action came at a time when non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) was introduced into the NHS England Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme for the trisomies 21, 13 and 18. The implementation of NIPT has been heavily criticised, in particular by 'Don't Screen Us Out' campaigners, for increasing fetal selection and discrimination of people living with disabilities. The case of Crowter and Lea-Wilson echoes debates in other European countries such as in France and Germany, where the introduction of NIPT in the public healthcare system has provoked equally vehement public reactions and discussions. The comparison between these three countries allows contextualising the public discourses around NIPT and the ground for termination of pregnancy in relation to different socio-cultural and political contexts. We examine how each country, and particularly England, deals with the conflict between the principles of promoting the rights of people living with disabilities and preserving women's reproductive autonomy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35347082
pii: medethics-2021-107912
doi: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107912
pmc: PMC10359504
doi:
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
471-473Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Prenat Diagn. 2017 Dec;37(13):1281-1290
pubmed: 29111614
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;47(1):38-44
pubmed: 26581188
Bioethics. 2021 Jul;35(6):518-527
pubmed: 33998016
Prenat Diagn. 2017 Nov;37(11):1130-1137
pubmed: 28892219
Prenat Diagn. 2016 Dec;36(12):1091-1098
pubmed: 27739584
Genet Med. 2021 Jun;23(6):1137-1142
pubmed: 33564150
Eur J Hum Genet. 2022 Jun;30(6):676-681
pubmed: 34602609
Genet Med. 2018 Nov;20(11):1346-1353
pubmed: 29493578