Abstract
The legal questions that arise as one considers the regulation and oversight of, access to, and use of preimplantation and prenatal genetic diagnosis are increasingly complex and nuanced. Often, they arise as constitutional questions, focusing on the various rights and interests at play, including those involving a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy for fetal anomaly, prospective parents’ desire to procreate by utilizing preimplantation genetic diagnosis, and the state’s (often countervailing) interest in protecting potential life. They may also arise as tort law questions involving providers’ malpractice/negligence and failure to provide informed consent. This chapter focuses on four primary legal issues or areas associated with prenatal and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. First, it addresses pregnancy termination for fetal anomalies discovered through prenatal genetic testing, both at the federal and state levels. It then provides a constitutional analysis of access to preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the state’s role in regulating the procedure. The chapter then turns to a discussion of existing oversight of preimplantation and prenatal genetic diagnosis. Finally, it explores issues of tort liability in the use of preimplantation and prenatal genetic diagnosis. Importantly, this chapter addresses whether information gleaned through prenatal or preimplantation genetic diagnosis is actionable under current legal standards, rather than the ethical question of whether it should be actionable.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Amagwula BS et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: a systematic review of litigation in the face of new technology. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1277–82.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Screening for fetal chromosomal anomalies. 2007. http://www.guideline.gov/content.aspx?id=10921. Accessed 23 May 2014.
An overview of abortion in the United States. Guttmacher Inst. 2014. http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2014.
Botkin JR. Prenatal diagnosis and the selection of children. Fla State Univ Law Rev. 2003;30:265.
Boonstra HD, Nash E. A surge of state abortion restrictions put providers-and the women they serve-in the crosshairs. Guttmacher Institute Policy Review. Winter 2014;17(1):9–14, 18. Available online at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/17/1/gpr170109.pdf.
Cohen IG. Intentional diminishment, the non-identity problem, and legal liability. Hast L J. 2008;60:347.
Coleman CH. Assisted reproductive technologies and the constitution. Fordham Urb L J. 2002a;30:57–70.
Coleman CH. Conceiving harm: disability discrimination in assisted reproductive technologies. UCLA L Rev. 2002b;50:17.
Corrigan LM. Fetal anomalies, undue burdens, and 20-week abortion bans. Science Progress. May 23, 2013. http://scienceprogress.org/2013/05/fetal-anomalies-undue-burdens-and-20-week-abortion-bans/. Accessed 23 May 2014.
Crockin SL. Overview of court decisions involving reproductive genetics. Genetics & Public Policy Center. http://www.dnapolicy.org/resources/Overviewofcourtdecisions_Crockin.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2014.
Daar J. Federalizing embryo transfers: taming the wild west of reproductive medicine? Colum J Gender L. 2012;23:257–325.
Eckholm E. Abortion providers in Texas sue over a restrictive rule that could close clinics. NY Times. 20 Apr 2014.
Eckholm E. Court panel upholds Texas law on abortion. NY Times. 27 Mar 2014.
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for serious adult onset conditions: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:54–7.
Genetics and Public Policy Center. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: a discussion of challenges, concerns, and preliminary policy options related to the genetic testing of human embryos. 2004. http://www.dnapolicy.org/images/reportpdfs/PGDDiscussionChallengesConcerns.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2014.
Genetics & Public Policy Center. Reproductive genetic testing. 2010. http://www.dnapolicy.org/policy.international.php?action=detail&laws_id=63. Accessed 22 June 2014.
Gunnar WP. The fundamental law that shapes the United States health care system: is universal health care realistic within the established paradigm? Ann Health L. 2006;1:151.
Hall E, Berlin M. Using medicaid to support preterm birth prevention: five case studies. 2014. http://www.marchofdimes.com/materials/partner-using-medicaid-to-support-preterm-birth-prevention-five-case-studies.pdf.
Hamburg MA. Commissioner’s address. June 2, 2013. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Speeches/ucm354888.htm. Accessed 22 June 2014.
Hansen M et al. Assisted reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects – a systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:328–38.
Hill BJ. Legislative restrictions on abortion. Virtual Mentor. 2012;14:133.
Kaira SK et al. Ovarian stimulation and low birth weight in newborns conceived through in vitro fertilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:863–71.
King JS. Not this child: constitutional questions in regulating noninvasive prenatal genetic diagnosis and selective abortion. UCLA L Rev. 2012;60:2.
King JS. And genetic testing for all… the coming revolution in non-invasive prenatal genetic testing. Rutgers L J. 2011;42:599.
King JS. Predicting probability: regulating the future of preimplantation genetic screening. Yale J Health Pol’y L Ethics. 2008;8:283.
Kliff S. The landscape of abortion bans, in one must-see map. Washington Post. March 28, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/28/the-landscape-of-abortion-bans-in-one-must-see-map/. Accessed 23 May 2014.
Lee SJ et al. Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence. JAMA. 2005;294:947–54.
Malek J, Daar J. The case for a parental duty to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis for medical benefit. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12:3–11.
Massie AM. Regulating choice: a constitutional law response to professor John A. Robertson’s children of choice. Wash Lee L Rev. 1995;52:135.
Merritt TA et al. Impact of ART on pregnancies in California: an analysis of maternity outcomes and insights into the added burden of neonatal intensive care. J Perinatol. 2014;34:345–50.
Meyer M. States’ regulation of assisted reproductive technologies: what does the U.S. Constitution allow? The Nelson A. Rockefeller Inst of Gov’t. 2009. http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/health_care/2009-07-States_Regulation_ART.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2014.
Monthly state updates: major developments in 2013 (as of 12/31/2013). Guttmacher Institute. http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/updates/2013/dec.html. Accessed 22 May 2014.
Monthly state updates: major developments in 2014 (as of 5/1/2014). Guttmacher Institute. May 1 2014. http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/updates/. Accessed 22 May 2014.
Mutcherson KM. Making mommies: law, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, and the complications of pre-motherhood. Colum J Gender L. 2008;18:313.
Nash E, et al. Laws affecting reproductive health and rights: 2013 state policy review. 2013. http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/updates/2013/statetrends42013.html. Accessed 22 May 2014.
National Women’s Law Center 2013. State level abortion restrictions: an extreme overreach into women’s reproductive health care; 2014. http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/2013_state_legislation_factsheet_1-27-14.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2014.
New York State Task Force on Life and the Law. Assisted reproductive technologies: analysis and recommendations for public policy. 1998.
Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) market (maternit21 plus, verifi, harmony, panorama, nifty, prenatest and bambnitest) – global industry analysis, size, share, growth, trends and forecast – 2013–2019. Transparency Market Research. 2013. http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/noninvasive-prenatal-diagnostics-market.html. Accessed 21 June 2014.
Ostrom CM. $50m awarded over birth defect; test said baby would be ok. The Seattle Times. 11 Dec 2013.
Parens E, Asch A. The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: reflections and recommendations. In: Parens E, Asch A, editors. Prenatal testing and disability rights. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2000. p. 13–4.
Pazol K, et al. Abortion surveillance – United States, 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2012. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm?s_cid=ss6108a1_w. Accessed 23 May 2014.
Ranji U, et al., Henry J Kaiser Fam Found. State medicaid coverage of perinatal services: summary of state findings. 2009:14. http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/upload/8014.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2014.
Rebar RW, DeCherney AH. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1603–04.
Rebouché R, Rothenberg K. Mixed messages: the intersection of prenatal genetic testing and abortion. How L Rev. 2012;55:983.
Robertson JA. Procreative liberty and harm to offspring in assisted reproduction. Am J L Med. 2004;30:7.
Smolensky KR. Creating children with disabilities: parental tort liability for preimplantation genetic interventions. Hast L J. 2008;60:299.
Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART). Summary of “eligibility determination for donors of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products”. 2006. http://www.sart.org/news/article.aspx?id=337. Accessed 22 June 2014.
State policies in brief: state funding of abortion under medicaid. Guttmacher Institute. May 1, 2014. http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SFAM.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2014.
State policies in brief: state policies on later abortions. Guttmacher Institute. May 1, 2014. http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2014.
State policies in brief: targeted regulation of abortion providers. Guttmacher Institute. May 1, 2014. http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_TRAP.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2014.
Stern A. A disturbing trend: conscience clauses threaten genetic counseling. Huffington Post. April 2, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-stern/a-disturbing-trend-consci_b_5066570.html. Accessed 23 May 2014
Suter SM. The “repugnance” lens of Gonzalez v. Carhart and other theories of reproductive technologies. George Wash L Rev. 2008;65:1514–98.
Swendiman KS. Health care: constitutional rights and legislative powers. Congressional Research Service. 2012. http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40846.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2014.
Thomson-Deveaux A. Fetal abnormalities: the next minefield in the abortion wars? The Am Prospect. 2014. http://prospect.org/article/fetal-abnormalities-next-minefield-abortion-wars. Accessed 22 May 2014.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Federal health care conscience protection statutes. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/ConscienceProtect/. Accessed 22 June 2014.
Wevers K. Prenatal torts and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Harv J L Technol. 2010;24:257.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Koch, V.G. (2015). Legal Issues in Prenatal and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. In: Paley Galst, J., Verp, M. (eds) Prenatal and Preimplantation Diagnosis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18911-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18911-6_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-18910-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-18911-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)