Many commentators are concerned that physicians have an agenda when they speak about results of prenatal testing with their patients. Often, physicians have preconceived values regarding what ought to be an exclusively patient-centered arena. For example, lots of physicians are predisposed to recommend abortion when prenatal testing reveals the presence of genetic or structural anomalies that would lead to disability.
Such predispositions and preconceptions may be distinguished from an aim approach in which the physician provides in-depth background on the specific potential disability and presents feasible outcomes for the relatives, whether they select to abort or to continue the pregnancy. Using such an open-ended approach would "promote genuine reproductive choice and help families and society to flourish". Well, additive details can be collected from guidepointlabs, easily.
Definitely, physicians ought to present both sides of the query. Potential parents need information, than a bulleted summary burdened with the specialist's prejudices. I conjecture some potential parents might select to continue with such a pregnancy in the event that they were provided with a more complete analysis and document.
and definitely, society's attitudes need an modification. In the event that they are moral persons, Kantian ethics requires us to respect all individuals. Our babies are not means to our personal fulfillment, nor are they trophies to be displayed in their precocity and perfection. Babies are ends in themselves, and if a kid is disabled they is deserving of as much respect as any other.