Sources used in this document:

Although it should have offered the test as an elective option, the clinic is not automatically liable for not testing Jane for two reasons. First, her risk factors were relatively low; and second, the test for the disorder can put the baby at risk. Moreover, Jane's risk factors were low considering her family had no history of Down Syndrome. If Jane had exhibited a family history of genetic abnormalities then the clinic could easily be held at fault in a court of law.

The doctors might have considered John's cousin but could have just as easily believed that a healthy young couple would not have opted for a voluntary amniocentesis that might place them at risk for miscarriage. After all, the couple had great trouble conceiving and if they miscarried might never conceive again. The risk for miscarriage as the result of the amniocentesis is, however, relatively low. For this reason, doctors should make a point to suggest the test as an option without mandating the test as a routine course of action.

Doctors should always suggest that a mother's embryo be tested. Yet unless the doctors ignored the standard clinic procedures or their legal obligations then the clinic cannot be held liable. The clinic would have done better to warn the parents of the possibility of Down syndrome, including what the condition entailed in terms of parenting. Experts agree on this issue: "In 2007, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended that every pregnant woman, regardless of age, be offered a choice of tests for this common birth defect," (slide 43). The clinic should be advised to offer an amniocentesis test, but must also warn the mother that the test itself can be dangerous. In this case, the clinic should only be held liable if it was not following the proper procedural code.