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

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. 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. I will conclude that this can be adequately described by the term "moral ambivalence". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]