Public health and the challenge of genomics

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 163-165

  Kirkman, Maggie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPREHENSION; DISABILITY; GENOMICS; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL GENETICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PROPHYLAXIS; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; SOCIAL ASPECT;

EID: 17844369989     PISSN: 13260200     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-842X.2005.tb00067.x     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Kerr C. Genetic testing and public health (editorial). Aust N Z J Public Health 1996;20:451-2.
2. O'Sullivan G, Sharman E, Short S. Goodbye Normal Gene: Confronting the Genetic Revolution. Sydney (AUST): Pluto Press; 1999.
3. Halliday JL, Collins VR, Aitken MA, et al. Genetics and public health - evolution, or revolution? J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:894-9.
4. Gerard S, Hayes M, Rothstein MA. On the edge of tomorrow: Fitting genomics into public health policy. J Law Med Ethics 2002;30:173-6.
5. Edwards RT. For debate: Steering a course around the genetic iceberg. J Public Health Med 2001;23:3-4.
6. Kaufert PA. Health policy and the new genetics. Soc Sci Med 2000;51:821-9.
7. Jones RL. The master potter and the rejected pots: eugenic legislation in Victoria, 1918-1939. Aust Historical Stud 1999;30:310-33.
8. Watts R. Beyond nature and nurture: Eugenics in twentieth century Australian history. Aust J Pol History 1994;40:318-34.
9. Pilnick A. What 'most people' do: exploring the ethical implications of genetic counselling. N Genet Soc 2002;21:339-50.
10. Finkler K. The kin in the gene: the medicalization of family and kinship in American society. Curr Anthropol 2001;42:235-63.
11. Marteau T, Richards M, editors. The Troubled Helix: Social and Psychological Implications of the New Human Genetics. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 1996.
12. Sachs L. The new age of the molecular family: An anthropological view on the medicalisation of kinship. Scand J Public Health 2004;32:24-9.
13. Shakespeare T. 'Losing the plot'? Medical and activist discourses of contemporary genetics and disability. Sociol Health Illn 1999;21:669-88.
14. Strathern M. Nostalgia and the new genetics. In: Battaglia D, editor. Rhetorics of Self-making. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press; 1995.
15. Turnbull D. Reflections on genetic manipulation and duties to posterity: An engagement with Skene and Coady. Monash Bioeth Rev 2002;21(4):10-31.
16. Petersen A, Bunton R. The New Genetics and the Public's Health. London (UK): Routledge; 2002.
17. Morris A, Saintier S. To be or not to be: Is that the question? Wrongful life and misconceptions. Med Law Rev 2003;11:167-93.
18. Savulescu J. Deaf lesbians, "designer disability," and the future of medicine. Br Med J 2002;325(7367):771-3.
19. Ridley M. The new eugenics: Better than the old. National Review 2000;July(31):34-6.
20. Watson JD. A personal view of the project. In: Kevles DJ, Hood L, editors. The Code of Codes: Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1992.
21. Schibeci R, Barns I, Shaw R, et al. Genetic medicine: an experiment in community-expert interaction. J Med Ethics 1999;25:335-9.
22. Scully JL, Rippberger C, Rehmann-Sutter C. Non-professionals' evaluations of gene therapy ethics. Soc Sci Med 2004;58:1415-25.
23. Ettorre E. Experts as 'storytellers' in reproductive genetics: exploring key issues. In: Conrad P, Gabe J, editors. Sociological Perspectives on the New Genetics. Oxford (UK): Blackwell; 1999.
24. Stockdale A. Waiting for the cure: mapping the social relations of human gene therapy research. Sociol Health Illn 1999;21:579-96.
25. Rapp R. Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America. New York: Routledge; 2000.
26. Kirkman M. Genetic connection and relationships in narratives of donor-assisted conception. Australian Journal for Emerging Technologies and Sociery [serial on the Internet]. 2004; 2(1). Available from: URL: http://www.swin.edu.au/ajets
27. Turney L, Gilding M, Critchley C, et al. DNA paternity testing: public perceptions and the influence of gender. Australian Journal for Emerging Technologies and Society Society [serial on the Internet]. 2003;1(2). Available from: URL: http://www.swin.edu.au/ajets
28. Australian Health Ethics Committee. Ethical Guidelines on the Use of Reproductive Technology in Clinical Practice and Research [draft for public consultation]. Canberra (AUST): National Health and Medical Research Council; 2003.
29. Bagaric M. Eugenics - so what's wrong with improving the quality of the human species? Monash Bioeth Rev 2001;20(2):11-26.
30. Advances in Genetics have Benefited Humanity but also pose ethical questions - Annan [monograph on the Internet]. New York: UN News Centre; 2004 January 12 [cited 2004 Feb 4]. Available from: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=9418&Cr=lecture&Cr1
31. Lippman A. Led (astray) by genetic maps: the cartography of the human genome and healthcare. Soc Sci Med 1992;35:1469-76.
32. Australian Law Reform Commission Essentially Yours: The Protection Of Human Genetic Information in Australia (ALRC 96). Sydney (AUST): ALRC; 2003.
33. Weisbrot D. The Australian joint inquiry into the protection of human genetic information. N Genet Soc 2003;22:89-113.
34. Taylor SD, Otlowski MF, Barlow-Stewart KK, et al. Investigating genetic discrimination in Australia: opportunities and challenges in the early stages. N Genet Soc 2004;23:225-39.