That's totally different situation ethically. He was open and made a recommended investigation contingent or knowledge of the risks. And she could decide the

That's totally different situation ethically. He was open and made a recommended investigation contingent or knowledge of the risks. And she could decide the invasiveness of peeing on a stick is not worth the benefit of being able to have an x-ray. On the other hand no offer was made. A test was illegally applied (even if you can force someone to have a test they must know about it), incorrectly interpreted with unjustly severe outcome. Also, you can be a celibate lesbian nun and in some countries you can't get prescribed valproate without having a coil or implant. Seems much more problematic.