PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15895002

Ethical issues in genetic testing.

Dale Halsey Lea·Janet Williams·M Patricia Donahue
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Genetic factors contribute to risk for disease. Information clarifying risk in an individual and his/her family members can be identified through clinical screening and genetic testing. In some circumstances, this information can be used in clinical decisions about surveillance and prevention or treatment of disease. However, use of this information is not always a straightforward process. Application of knowledge about risk of genetic disease in provision of primary health care for women requires understanding of new genetic discoveries as well as the ability to participate in resolution of ethical dilemmas that may result when genetic screening and testing are considered. These dilemmas arise not only from the current state of knowledge about genetic risk factors and utility of genetic tests but also result from conflicts that can arise when the needs of the client are not in unison with needs of others within the family or society. Ethical theories and principles provide a framework for resolving ethical dilemmas in maternal screening for genetic conditions during a pregnancy, carrier testing prior to or during a pregnancy, clinical genetic testing, and newborn metabolic screening.

Explore related subjects

Attitude to HealthFemaleGenetic ServicesHumansMidwiferyPregnancyJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Dale Halsey Lea, Janet Williams, M Patricia Donahue. Ethical issues in genetic testing.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmwh.2004.12.016

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Science, gender, and the emergence of depression in American psychiatry, 1952-1980.

Between the first (1952) and the third (1980) editions of psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, depression emerged as a specific disease category with concrete criteria. In this article, I analyze this change over time in psychiatric theory and diagnosis through an examination of medication trials and category formation. Throughout, I pay particular attention to the ways in which psychiatrists and researchers invoked science in their clinical trials and disease theories, as well as the ways in which gender played an important but largely unspoken role in the formation of a category of depression.

Attitude to Health↗
PubMed2006

Value of life and behavior toward health risks: an interpretation of social capital.

An individual assessing a risky job can be understood as a public good. He and each of his valued relationships place a demand for the preservation of his life and health for which he accepts a responsibility to preserve. Additional demands generally do not deplete his capacity for beneficial relationships, hence, they are nonrival. It follows that the more extensive are his relationships the greater is his social capital. Although a common metric to compare and aggregate such relationships is not practical, the paper demonstrates that the common social capital indicators can yield qualitative predictions on changes in risky behaviors in the context of conventional value of life models familiar within health economics. The individual will change his behavior toward risk upon experiencing an exogenous change in his social capital: when he marries, has children, acquires friends, or experiences a more socially active community. The empirical sections of the paper show this prediction to conform well to prior studies of micro data as well as to original empirical analysis of aggregate data.

Attitude to Health↗
PubMed2006

Multi-method approach to valuing health states: problems with meaning.

In an earlier article in Health Economics, Salomon and Murray argue that by applying maximum likelihood techniques to predetermined functional forms and to a data set where a number of health states are valued by means of four standard valuation techniques, underlying 'pure' valuations of health may be teased out, together with estimates of parametric relationships between these 'pure' valuations and valuations based on the four standard techniques. We argue below that 'pure' valuations of health are ordinal rather than cardinal and that the 'pure' values that result from the multi-method approach give a false impression of being cardinal. They are therefore not usable as weights for life years. In the unlikely event that the authors should be able to demonstrate cardinality in 'pure' valuations of health, it must be possible to have subjects express these valuations directly, in which case there seems to be no need for the indirect multi-method approach.

Attitude to Health↗