Where are we going with preimplantation genetic diagnosis?

CMAJ. Canadian Medical Association Journal

Volumn 176, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 1445-1446

  Krahn, Timothy ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; COLORECTAL CANCER; DECISION MAKING; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; INFERTILITY; NOTE; OVARY CANCER; PRENATAL CARE; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS;

EID: 34248545703     PISSN: 08203946     EISSN: 14882329     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.061690     Document Type: Note

References (15)

1. Assisted Human Reproduction Act, SC 2004, c 2, S10(2), 40(1).
2. Jones M, Salter B, Pigeon N. RES-000-22-0987 - Policy transfer in risk governance: lessons from the UK biotechnology framework. London (UK): Economic and Social Research Council; 2006. Available: www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ ESRCInfoCentre/Plain_English_Summaries/work_organisation/innovation_change/ index27.aspx?ComponentId=15624&SourcePageId=1707 (accessed 2007 Mar 30).
3. Jones M. What can one nation learn from another? Exploring policy choice in the new Canadian framework for assisted human reproduction. London (UK): BioNews.org.uk; 2005 Oct 3. Available: www.bionews.org.uk/commentary.lasso? storyid=2765 (accessed 2007 Mar 16).
4. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Authority decision on the use of PGD for lower penetrance, later onset inherited conditions. London (UK):The Authority; 2006. Available: www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/ The_Authority_decision_Choices_and_boundaries.pdf (accessed 2007 April 2).
5. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Choices & boundaries report 2006: a summary of responses to the HFEA public discussion. London (UK): The Authority; 2006. Available: www.hfea.gov.uk/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-3F57D79B- 8FC36EC9/hfea/Choices_and_boundaries_Report_2006.pdf (accessed 2007 Mar 9).
6. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Choices and boundaries: Should people be able to select embryos free from an inherited susceptibility to cancer? London (UK): The Authority; 2005. Available: www.hfea.gov.uk/cps/rde/ xbcr/SID-3F57D79B-5A0CC17F/hfea/Choices_and_Boundaries.pdf (accessed 2007 Mar 30).
7. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Code of practice. 6th ed. London (UK): The Authority; 2003. Available: www.hfea.gov.uk/cps/rde/ xbcr/SID-3F57D79B-FAAAF985/hfea/Code_of_Practice_Sixth_Edition_-_final.pdf (accessed 2007 Mar 9).
8. Harris M, Winship I, Spriggs M. Controversies and ethical issues in cancer-genetics clinics. Lancet Oncol 2005;6:301-10.
9. Asch A. Disability equality and prenatal testing: Contradictory or compatible? Fla State Univ Law Rev 2003;30:315-42.
10. Matloff ET, Shappell H, Brierley K, et al. What would you do? Specialists' perspectives on cancer genetic testing, prophylactic surgery and insurance discrimination. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2484-92.
11. Marteau TM, Drake H. Attributions for disability: the influence of genetic screening. Soc Sci Med 1995;40:1127-32.
12. Beeson D. Social and ethical challenges of prenatal diagnosis. Med Ethics (Burlington, Mass) 2000 Winter;1-2, 8. Available: www.lahey.org/Pdf/Ethics/ Winter_2000.pdf (accessed 2007 Mar 30).
13. Holtzman NA, Shapiro D. Genetic testing and public policy. BMJ 1998;316:852-6.
14. Wasserman D, Asch A. American Medical Association. The uncertain rationale for prenatal disability screening. Virtual Mentor. 2006; 8: 53-56. Available: www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/print/15809.html (accessed 2007 Mar 9).
15. Lippman A. Prenatal genetic testing and screening: constructing needs and reinforcing inequities. Am J Law Med 1991;17:15-50.