Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-05T08:25:01.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Harvey and Gurvir’s Law: Ontario Bill for Quality Prenatal Information about Down Syndrome: Terminology, Feasibility, and Ethical Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2023

Marie-Eve Lemoine ,
Anne-Marie Laberge ,
Marie-Françoise Malo ,
Stéphanie Cloutier ,
Marie-Christine Roy ,
Stanislav Birko ,
Andréa Daigle  and
Vardit Ravitsky
Marie-Eve Lemoine
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL, QUEBEC, CANADA.
Anne-Marie Laberge
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL, QUEBEC, CANADA.
Marie-Françoise Malo
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL, QUEBEC, CANADA.
Stéphanie Cloutier
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL, QUEBEC, CANADA.
Marie-Christine Roy
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL, QUEBEC, CANADA.
Stanislav Birko
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL, QUEBEC, CANADA.
Andréa Daigle
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL, QUEBEC, CANADA.
Vardit Ravitsky
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL, QUEBEC, CANADA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Harvey and Gurvir’s Law is a bill proposed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario (Canada) to reduce stigma and bias associated with Down syndrome, by developing and disseminating quality information about Down syndrome in the context of prenatal testing.

Keywords

Down SyndromePrenatal TestingInformed ChoiceCounselingDisability Rights
Type
Policy Paper
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 51 , Issue 3: Seeking Reproductive Justice in the Next 50 Years , Fall 2023 , pp. 651 - 657
Copyright
© 2023 The Author(s)

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bill 225, An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 respecting the provision of information respecting Down syndrome by regulated health professionals - Harvey and Gurvir’s Law (Provision of Information Respecting Down Syndrome), 1st Sess, 42nd Leg, Ontario, 2020.Google Scholar
Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of Debates (Hansard), 42nd Parl, 1st Sess, No 203 (2 November 2020) at 10187 (Sara Singh).Google Scholar
See Bill 224, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Bill 304, An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 respecting the provision of information about Down syndrome to expectant parents, regulated health professionals and the public - Harvey and Gurvir’s Law (Providing Information about Down Syndrome to Expectant Parents, Regulated Health Professionals and the Public), 1st Session, 42nd Legislature, Ontario, 2021.Google Scholar
Bill 101, An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 respecting the provision of information about Down syndrome to expectant parents, regulated health professionals and the public - Harvey and Gurvir’s Law (Providing Information about Down Syndrome to Expectant Parents, Regulated Health Professionals and the Public), 2nd Session, 42nd Legislature, Ontario, 2022.Google Scholar
Leach, M. W., “The Down Syndrome Information Act: Balancing the Advances of Prenatal Testing Through Public Policy,” Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 54, no. 2 (2016): 84–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___ (June 24, 2022), available at <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf> (last visited September 7, 2023).+(last+visited+September+7,+2023).>Google Scholar
Allyse, M. A. and Michie, M., “Prenatal Genetics in a Post-Roe United States,” Cell Reports Medicine 3, no. 7 (2022).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitby, G., et al., “Impacts of Overturning Roe v. Wade on Reproductive Health Care,” Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers 26, no. 7-8 (2022): 349–350.Google Scholar
R. v Morgentaler [1988] 1 SCR 30. (Can).Google Scholar
Martin, D., Miller, A. P., and Quesnel-Vallée, A., et al., “Canada’s Universal Health-Care System: Achieving its Potential,” The Lancet 391, no. 10131 (2018): 1718–1735, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30181-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erdman, J. N., “In the Back Alleys of Health Care: Abortion, Equality, and Community in Canada,” Emory Law Journal 56 (2006): 1094–1155.Google Scholar
Berer, M., “Abortion Law and Policy around the World: In Search of Decriminalization Special Section on Abortion and Human Rights: Discussion,” Health & Human Rights Journal 19, no. 1 (2017): 1328.Google Scholar
Gareau-Léonard, A., Fillion, A., and Labine, L., et al., “Evolution of Down Syndrome Prenatal Screening Clinical Practices in Québec,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 42, no. 4 (2020): 439–445, doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2019.09.025; J. L. Natoli, D. L. Ackerman, and S. McDermott, et al., “Prenatal Diagnosis of Down Syndrome: A Systematic Review of Termination Rates (1995-2011),” Prenatal Diagnosis 32, no. 2 (2012): 142-153, doi: 10.1002/pd.2910. PMID: 22418958.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
See Bill 101, supra note 5.Google Scholar
See Leach, supra note 6.Google Scholar
See Leach, supra note 6.Google Scholar
See Leach, supra note 6.Google Scholar
M. E. Lemoine and V. Ravitsky, “The Down Syndrome Information Act and ‘Mere Difference’: Redefining the Scope of Prenatal Testing Conversations?” Beyond Disadvantage: Disability, Law, and Bioethics (2021) (symposium, Harvard Law School.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hippman, C., et al., “What is a “Balanced” Description? Insight from Parents of Individuals with Down Syndrome,” Journal of Genetic Counseling 21 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheets, K. B., et al., “Balanced Information about Down Syndrome: What is Essential?” American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 155a, no. 6 (2011): 1246–1257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
See Leach, supra note 6; Levenson, D., “Debate Surrounds State Laws for Down Syndrome Fact Sheets,” American Journal Of Medical Genetics Part A 170, no. 3 (2016): 555–556.Google Scholar
See Bill 101, supra note 5.Google Scholar
See Leach, supra note 6; and Levenson, supra note 22.Google Scholar
Lehman, A., et al., “Delivering a New Diagnosis of Down Syndrome: Parent Experience,” American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 185, no. 12 (2021): 3615–3622, doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.62408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
See Levenson, supra note 22.Google Scholar
See Leach, supra note 6.Google Scholar
Meredith, S., et al., “Impact of the Increased Adoption of Prenatal CFDNA Screening on Non-Profit Patient Advocacy Organizations in the United States,” Prenatal Diagnosis 36, no. 8 (2016): 714–719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statham, H., et al., “Prenatal Diagnosis of Fetal Abnormality: Psychological Effects on Women in Low-Risk Pregnancies,” Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 14, no. 4 (2000): 731–747.Google ScholarPubMed
Audibert, F., et al., “No. 348-Joint SOGC-CCMG Guideline: Update on Prenatal Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy, Fetal Anomalies, and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 39, no. 9 (2017): 805–817.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rondal, J. A., “From the Lab to the People: Major Challenges in the Biological Treatment of Down Syndrome,” Aims Neuroscience 8, no. 2 (2021): 284–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, E. Snure, et al., “Attitudes Toward Hypothetical Uses of Gene-Editing Technologies in Parents of People with Autosomal Aneuploidies,” The Crispr Journal 2, no. 5 (2019).Google Scholar
See Leach, supra note 6.Google Scholar
See Leach, supra note 6.Google Scholar