Abstract
Well-intended efforts to diagnose a child's developmental delay may have unintended negative consequences for a child and his family. Consequently, clinicians may feel caught in a moral dilemma: between doing the good they seek and avoiding the harm they foresee. The dilemma is that when investigating global developmental delay it is not possible to avoid all the anticipated negative outcomes of genetic testing and concurrently fulfill our obligations to do the good from which these harmful effects result. It is imperative to recognize dilemmas especially where the moral questions or relevant facts are not as clear cut as in ethics textbooks and to bring their moral questions into a structured dialogue with the patient and his or her family. A modified principle of double effect is a useful method for deliberating about these moral cases. Three case examples illustrate the utility of the principle of double effect when investigating global developmental delay.