English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been available for almost 10 years. In many countries the test attracted considerable criticism from the start. While most critical comments in this context deal with the (alleged) problem of eugenic selection, I will concentrate on a somewhat broader issue. Content I will argue that NIPT clearly has the potential to increase reproductive autonomy and benefit expectant parents. However, NIPT can also put people in a situation that is morally overwhelming for them and from which there is no easy way out. In this sense, such tests can have a dilemma-generating effect. Summary and Outlook I will conclude that this can be adequately described by the term “moral ambivalence”.

Moral ambivalence. A comment on non-invasive prenatal testing from an ethical perspective