Ethical Problems in Prenatal Testing
To view a PDF of this document, click here.
The US Catholic Bishops, in directive 50 of The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, summarize well the ethics of prenatal tests:
Prenatal diagnosis is permitted when the procedure does not threaten the life or physical integrity of the unborn child or the mother and does not subject them to disproportionate risks; when the diagnosis can provide information to guide preventive care for the mother or pre- or postnatal care for the child; and when the parents, or at least the mother, give free and informed consent. Prenatal diagnosis is not permitted if undertaken with the intention of aborting an unborn child with a serious defect.
Indeed, the ethical “elephant in the room” is the motivation behind the now near universal prenatal testing pushed by many governments and health care entities. The aim is usually to detect any fetal health problems and make possible the abortion of those children.
The Catholic perspective is radically different. We want parents and preborn children to receive accurate medical information and treatment without the pressure or temptation to commit abortion. Dr. Robin Pierucci, a physician based in the US, works with Fetal Concerns to support parents and health care professionals in cases of prenatal testing where anomalies are found or suspected. Their goal is to combine as much scientific clarity as possible with empathy and hope for parents dealing with the news their preborn baby could have a severe genetic illness or other health condition. What frequently happens in a secular context after a poor prenatal diagnosis is a “counseling session” that offers no real empathy or care options. Instead, abortion is presented as the obvious and even compassionate choice to often bewildered parents who are still processing the shock of hearing their child is sick and may not survive.
An astonishing fact is that the frequently offered noninvasive prenatal screening tests are only reliable for detecting certain genetic problems, but for other rare medical conditions have extremely high rates of “false positives” that incorrectly indicate a sick baby. This means they mostly have misleading results for some rare and severe illnesses. This can alarm parents unnecessarily and has led to abortions of healthy children.
The Australian Catholic Medical Association has created a document with evidenced-based medical and ethical information for parents contemplating granting consent to prenatal genetic testing. The document points out that noninvasive prenatal testing or NIPT is mainly done to detect trisomy 21, 13, or 18 in the first 3 months of pregnancy. Trisomy 21 is better known as Down Syndrome and is the more common and typically less deadly of the three genetic conditions. The main ethical problem about seeking to detect these three illnesses is that there are currently no treatment options for the affected children. It is mainly done to find and subsequently kill these babies before birth. Confirmation of the screening test results usually requires an invasive amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling test that both involve introducing a long needle into the womb and obtaining cells from inside the amniotic sac or the placenta. As can be easily understood, these invasive prenatal tests involve risks to the developing fetus. The Australian document points out that few high-quality scientific studies have been done to ascertain the average risks, but it was reliably found that between 1% and 0.5% of preborn babies subjected to these tests die as a direct result. Other, less common and fatal risks include: amniotic fluid leakage (sometimes leading to premature birth), umbilical cord damage, lung underdevelopment, damage to fetal arms, legs, or fingers, and even infections of the mothers.
Ethically speaking, why would anyone give consent to procedures that present a risk to the child and mother and provide information about conditions for which there is no treatment? The Australian Catholic Medical Association points out the questions that should be asked. “What is the intended therapeutic benefit to the tested child? Is there an evidenced benefit for the child? What is the effect on the parents?” One of the only invasive tests which currently can provide medical benefits for the prenatal child greater than the risks from the testing procedure looks for spinal muscular atrophy. In almost all other invasive testing scenarios the lives of preborn babies are placed at risk with the only practical results being providing more information to the parents and the possibility of deciding on abortion for sick children.
Catholic bioethics does not condemn prenatal diagnostic exams, especially non-invasive tests, if done for the right reasons. Parents should ask themselves before consenting if the information provided is worthwhile having, especially when some results provide unnecessary anguish from false positives or a diagnosis for which there is no treatment. When tests involve risks for the baby, the ethical bar rises as there needs to be a proportionate benefit to justify the risks incurred. In all cases, when a preborn child is suspected of having a serious health condition, the parents should receive compassionate and caring counselling that does not tempt them to choose abortion.
Joseph Meaney, PhD, KM
August 18, 2026
Joseph Meaney received his PhD in bioethics from the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome. His doctoral program was founded by the late Elio Cardinal Sgreccia and linked to the medical school and Gemelli teaching hospital. His dissertation topic was Conscience and Health Care: A Bioethical Analysis. Dr. Meaney earned his master’s in Latin American studies, focusing on health care in Guatemala, from the University of Texas at Austin. He graduated from the University of Dallas with a BA in history and a concentration in international studies. The Benedict XVI Catholic University in Trujillo, Peru, awarded Dr. Meaney an honorary visiting professorship. The University of Dallas bestowed on him an honorary doctorate in Humane Letters in 2022.