Aiming towards "moral equilibrium": Health care professionals' views on working within the morally contested field of antenatal screening

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 505-509

  Farsides, Bobbie ^a   Williams, C ^a   Alderson, P ^b  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; GENERAL HOSPITAL; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; INTERVIEW; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MORALITY; PERINATAL CARE; PRENATAL SCREENING; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RELIGION; TASK PERFORMANCE; TEACHING HOSPITAL; UNITED KINGDOM;

EMPIRICAL APPROACH; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; FEMALE; FETAL DISEASES; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HUMANS; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; MORALS; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; STRESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL;

EID: 6444240305     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2002.001438     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Casper M. The making of the unborn patient. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1998.
2. Kent J. Social perspectives on pregnancy and childbirth for midwives, nurses, and the caring professions. Buckingham: Open University Press.
3. Williams C, Alderson P, Farsides B. Conflicting perspectives of the fetus: person, patient, "nobody", commodity? New Genet Soc 2001;20:225-38.
4. Burke B, Kolker A. Directiveness in prenatal genetic counseling. Women and Health 1994;22:31-53.
5. Clarke A. The process of genetic counselling. In: Harper P, Clarke A, eds. Genetics, society and clinical practice. Oxford: BIOS Scientific Publishers, 1997:180.
6. Williams C, Alderson P, Farsides B. Is non-directiveness possible within the context of antenatal screening and testing? Soc Sci Med 2002;54:339-47.
7. Department of Health. Second report of the UK national screening committee. London: Department of Health, 2000.
8. Abramsky L, Hall S, Levitan J, et al. What parents are told after prenatal diagnosis of a sex chromosome abnormality: interview and questionnaire study. BMJ 2001; 322 463-6.
9. Williams C, Alderson P, Farsides B. What constitutes balanced" information in practitioners' portrayals of Down's syndrome? Midwifery 2002;18:230-7.
10. Dormandy E. Better understanding of factors influencing uptake is needed. BMJ 1999;318:805.
11. Press N, Browner C. Why women say yes to prenatal testing. Soc Sci Med 1997;45:979-89.
12. General Medical Council. The new doctor. Supplement on general clinical training in general practice. London: GMC, 1998.
13. Lofland J, Lofland L. Analyzing social settings: a guide to qualitative observation and analysis [2nd ed]. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1984.
14. Weber R. Basic content analysis. London: Sage, 1990.
15. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research London: Sage, 1990.
16. Charmaz K. The grounded theory method: an explication and interpretation. In: Emerson R, ed. Contemporary field research: a collection of readings. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1983.
17. Alderson P, Farsides B, Williams C. Examining ethics in practice: health service professionals' evaluations of inhouse ethics seminars. J Nurs Ethics 2002;9:518-51.
18. Williams C, Alderson P, Farsides B. Too many choices? Hospital and community staff reflect on the future of prenatal screening. Soc Sci Med 2002;55:743-53.