Compliance with science: Consent or coercion in newborn screening

European Journal of Pediatrics

Volumn 163, Issue 12, 2004, Pages 757-758

  Pollitt, Rodney J ^a  

^a SHEFFIELD CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHILD ABUSE; COMPLIANCE (PHYSICAL); EDITORIAL; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; MORALITY; NEWBORN; NEWBORN CARE; NEWBORN SCREENING; PARENTAL BEHAVIOR; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCIENCE;

GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; HEALTH CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH; PROFESSIONAL PATIENT RELATIONSHIP;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHILD; CHILD ADVOCACY; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; NEONATAL SCREENING; PARENT-CHILD RELATIONS; PARENTS; TREATMENT REFUSAL;

EID: 11244258429     PISSN: 03406199     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-004-1557-z     Document Type: Editorial

References (4)

1. Brown AJ, MacKenzie J, Fitch M, Estell A, Aitken D (2004) Impact of obtaining signed consent for newborn screening tests in Scotland, (abstract) Proc Assoc Clin Biochemists National Meeting, pp 118
2. Nicholson P, Tunaley JR (1997) The psychological costs and benefits of neonatal screening. In: Pollitt RJ, Green A, McCabe CJ et al Neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism: cost yield and outcome. Health Technol Assess 1: 83-101
3. North Western Health Board v. H.W. and C.W. (2001)http:// www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2001/70.html (accessed 6th September 2004)
4. Sewell AC, Gebhardt B, Herwig J, Rauterberg EW (2004) Acceptance of extended newborn screening: the problem of parental non-compliance. Eur J Pediatr (this issue)