Why is non-directive genetic counselling impossible?;Miért nem lehetséges a semleges jellegu genetikai tanácsadás?

Magyar Noorvosok Lapja

Volumn 68, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 113-120

  Tóth, Adél ^a   Szabó, János ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SZEGED   (Hungary)

^b Orvosi Genetikai Intézet ^*

Author keywords

Genetic counselling; Non directiveness; Value orientation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSULTATION; DECISION MAKING; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC RISK; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; LINGUISTICS; PATIENT ATTITUDE;

EID: 16344375862     PISSN: 0025021X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Wertz DC, Fletcher JC. Attitudes of genetic counselors: a multinational survey. Am J Hum Genet 1988; 42: 592-600.
2. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Genetic screening. Ethical issues. 1993; 36-38.
3. Galton DJ, Galton CJ. Francis Galton and eugenics today. J Med Ethics 1998; 24: 99-105.
4. Wikler D. Can we learn from eugenics? J Med Ethics 1999; 25: 183-194.
5. Tóth A, Szabó J. A Down-szindróma praenatalis szurésének néhány etikai vonatkozása. Orv Hetil 2000; 141: 2293-2298.
6. Fraser FC. Genetic counseling. Am J Hum Genet 1974; 26: 636-659.
7. Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA 1992; 267: 2221-2226.
8. Czeizel E. Egy orvosgenetikus etikai gondjai. Kossuth Könyvkiadó, Budapest, 1983; 30-35, 65-88.
9. Papp Z. Genetikai tanácsadás. In: Papp Z. (szerk.). Orvosi genetika. Golden Book Kiadó, 1995; 316-321.
10. Szabó J. A prenatális genetikai diagnosztika lehetoségei. Magy Noorv L 2000; 63: 3-13.
11. Wertz DC, Fletcher JC. Feminist criticism of prenatal diagnosis: a response. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1993; 36: 541-567.
12. Bernhardt BA. Empirical evidence that genetic counseling is directive: where do we go from here? Am J Hum Genet 1997; 60: 17-20.
13. Seller MJ. Genetic counselling, in Gillon R. (ed.). Principles of health care ethics. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1994; 961-970.
14. Baylis F, Downie J. Professional recommendations: disclosing facts and values. J Med Ethics 2001; 27: 20-24.
15. Michie S, Bron F, Bobrow M, Marteau TM. Nondirectiveness in genetic counseling: an empirical study. Am J Hum Genet 1997; 60: 40-47.
16. Kessler S. Genetic counseling is directive? Look again. Am J Hum Genet 1997; 61: 466-467.
17. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981; 211: 453-458.
18. Kessler S, Levine EK. Psychological aspects of genetic counseling. IV. The subjective assessment of probability. Am J Med Genet 1987; 28: 361-370.
19. Clarke A. Is non-directive genetic counselling possible? Lancet 1991; 338: 998-1001.
20. Green J, Statham H. Psychological aspects of prenatal screening and diagnosis. In: Marteau T, Richards M. (eds.). The troubled helix: social and political implications of the new human genetics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996, 140-163.
21. King DS. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the 'new' eugenics. J Med Ethics 1999; 25: 176-182.
22. Hildt E. Autonomy and freedom of choice in prenatal genetic diagnosis. Med Health Care Philos 2002; 5: 65-71.
23. Rentmeester CA. Value neutrality in genetic counseling: an unattained ideal. Med Health Care Philos 2001; 41: 47-51.
24. Kálmán Zs. Bánatko. Keraban Könyvkiadó. 1996; 10-13.
25. Gadamer H-G. Igazság es módszer. Gondolat 1984; 191-264.
26. Shiloh S. Decision-making in the context of genetic risk. In: Marteau T, Richards M. (eds.). The troubled helix: social and political implications of the new human genetics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996, 82-103.
27. Wertz DC, Sorenson JR. Client reactions to genetic counseling: self-reports of influence. Clin Genet 1986; 30: 494-502.
28. Menutti M. A 35-year-old pregnant woman considering maternal serum screening and amniocentesis. JAMA 1996; 275: 1440-1446.
29. Borbély S. Klinikai munka fogyatékos gyermekek szüleivel. Pediáter 1994; 3: 137-139.
30. Marteau TM. Towards informed decisions about prenatal testing: a review. Prenat Diagn 1995; 15: 1215-1226.
31. Tóth A. Az értelmezo orvosi etika szerepe a Down-szindrómás gyermekeket nevelo családok és az orvosaik közötti kapcsolat kialakításában. Pediáter 2000; 9: 297-305.
32. White MT. Decision-making through dialogue: reconfiguring autonomy in genetic counseling. Theor Med Bioeth 1998; 19: 5-19.
33. Savulescu J. Rational non-interventional paternalism: why doctors ought to make judgments of what is best for their patients. J Med Ethics 1995; 21: 327-331.
34. Nordgren A. Wisdom, casuistry, and the goal of reproductive counseling. Med Health Care Philos 2002; 5: 281-289.