Susceptible individuals and risky rights: Dimensions of genetic responsibility

Biomedicine as Culture: Instrumental Practices, Technoscientific Knowledge, and New Modes of Life

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 151-165

  Lemke, Thomas ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WUPPERTAL   (Germany)

^b Institut fur Sozialforschung   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 65149083785     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203941584     Document Type: Chapter

References (61)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2003. Your genes, your choices. http://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human_Genome/publicat/genechoice/contents.html (accessed November 9, 2006).
2. American Society of Human Genetics Social Issues Subcommittee on Familial Disclosure. 1998. ASHG statement: Professional disclosure of familial genetic information. American Journal of Human Genetics 62:474-83.
3. Andre, Judith, Leonhard M. Fleck, and Tom Tomlinson. 2000. On being genetically "irresponsible.". Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 10, no. 2: 129-46.
4. Andrews, Lori B. (1997). Gen-etiquette: Genetic information, family relationships, and adoption. In Genetic secrets: Protecting privacy and confidentiality in the genetic era, edited by M. A. Rothstein, 255-80 New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5. Beeson, Diane, and Teresa Doksum. (2001). Family values and resistance to genetic testing. In Bioethics in social context, edited by B. Hoffmaster, 153-78 Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
6. Billings, Paul, et al. 1992. Discrimination as a consequence of genetic testing. American Journal of Human Genetics 50:476-82.
7. Brock, Dan W. (1999). The Human Genome Project and human identity. In Genes and human self-knowledge: Historical and philosophical reflections on modern genetics, edited by Robert F. Weir, Susan C. Lawrence, and Evan Fales, 18-33 Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
8. Callon, Michel, and Vololona Rabeharisoa. 2004. Gino's lesson on humanity: Genetics, mutual entanglements and the sociologist's rule. Economy and Society 33:1-27.
9. Chevron USA, Inc. v. Echazabel, 122 S. Ct. 2045 (2002).
10. Clayton, Ellen Wright. 2003. Ethical, legal, and social implications of genomic medicine. New England Journal of Medicine 349:562-69.
11. Collins, Francis S. 1999. Shattuck lecture: Medical and societal consequences of the Human Genome Project. New England Journal of Medicine 341:28-37.
12. Conrad, Peter. 1999. A mirage of genes.. Sociology of Health & Illness 21: 228-41.
13. D'Agincourt-Canning, Lori. 2001. Experiences of genetic risk: Disclosure and the gendering of responsibility. Bioethics 15, no. 3: 231-47.
14. Damm, Reinhard. (2003). Prädiktive genetische Tests: Gesellschaftliche Folgen und rechtlicher Schutz der Persönlichkeit. In Das genetische Wissen und die Zukunft des Menschen, edited by L. Honnefelder et al., 203-28 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
15. Daniels, Norman. 2003. Chevron v Echazabal: Protection, opportunity, and paternalism. American Journal of Public Health 93:545-48.
16. Dearing, Ann. 2002. Genetic discrimination. Risk Management (July): 8-9.
17. Deftos, Leonard J. 1998. The evolving duty to disclose the presence of genetic disease to relatives. Academic Medicine 73:962-68.
18. Douglas, Mary. 1990. Risk as a forensic resource. Daedalus 119:1-16.
19. Duster, Troy. 1990. Backdoor to eugenics. New York: Routledge.
20. Finkler, Kaja, Cécile Skrzynia, and James P. Evans. 2003. The new genetics and its consequences for family, kinship, medicine and medical genetics. Social Science and Medicine 57:403-12.
21. Gaudillière, Jean-Paul. 1995. Sequenzieren, Zählen und Vorhersehen. Praktiken einer Genverwaltung. Tüte (special issue, "Wissen und Macht-Die Krise des Regierens, Tübingen"): 34-39.
22. GeneWatch UK. 2003. Genetic testing in the workplace: Creating a genetic underclass?. Report Briefing no. 24. London: GeneWatch UK.
23. Hallowell, Nina. (1999). Doing the right thing: Genetic risk and responsibility. In Sociological Perspectives on the New Genetics, edited by P. Conrad and J. Gabe, 97-120 Oxford: Blackwell.
24. Hardin, Garrett. (1974). The moral threat of personal medicine. In Genetic responsibility: On choosing our children's genes, edited by Mack Lipkin Jr. and Peter T. Rowley, 85-91 New York: Plenum Press.
25. Henn, Wolfram. 2002. Probleme der ärztlichen Schweigepflicht in Familien mit Erbkrankheiten. Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ethik 48:343-54.
26. Husted, Jorgen. (1997). Autonomy and a right not to know. In The right to know and the right not to know, edited by Ruth Chadwick, Mairi Levitt, and Darren Shickle, 55-68 Aldershot, UK: Avebury.
27. Kerr, Anne, and Tom Shakespeare. 2002. Genetic politics: From eugenics to genome. Oxford: New Clarion Press.
28. Klees, Bernd. 1990. Der Griff in die Erbanlagen. Verdrängte Probleme der Genomanalyse. Braunschweig: Steinweg Verlag.
29. Klees, Bernd. (1992). Schöne neue Welt-oder neuer Sozialdarwinismus? Auswirkungen von Bio- und Gentechnologien auf die Arbeitswelt. In Lebensqualität statt Qualitätskontrolle menschlichen Lebens, edited by A-D. Stein, 199-250 Berlin: Marhold.
30. Kristof, Nicholas D. 2003. Staying alive, staying human. New York Times, February 11.
31. Lebel, Robert R. 1977. Approach to notion of genetic responsibility. American Journal of Human Genetics 29, no. 6: A67.
32. Lehming, Malte. 2001. US-Unternehmen wegen Gentests verklagt. Der Tagesspiegel, February 12, 5.
33. Lemke, Thomas. 2004. Disposition and determinism: Genetic diagnostics in risk society. The Sociological Review 52:550-66.
34. Lemke, Thomas. 2006a. Genetic responsibility and neo-liberal governmentality: Medical diagnosis as moral terrain. In Michel Foucault and Power Today. International Multidisciplinary Studies in the History of the Present, edited by Alain Beaulieu and David Gabbard, 83-91. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
35. Lemke, Thomas. 2006b. Die Polizei der Gene. Formen und Felder genetischer Diskriminierung. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
36. Lomax, Geoffrey. 2002. Chevron v. Echazabal: A sobering decision for environmental health research. Environmental Health Perspectives 110, no. 9: A504-A505.
37. Marshall, Eliot. 1999. Beryllium screening raises ethical issues. Science 285:178-79.
38. Martindale, Diane. 2001. Pink slip in your genes.. Scientific American, no. 13: 14-.
39. Meyer, Ingo 2001. "Der Mensch als Datenträger?" Zur verfassungsrechtlichen Bewertung postnataler genetischer Untersuchungen. Berlin: Berlin Verlag.
40. Miller, Paul Steven. 1998. Genetic discrimination in the workplace. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 26:189-97.
41. Milunsky, Aubrey. 2001. Your genetic destiny: Know your genes, secure your health, save your life. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
42. National Council on Disability (NCD). 2003. Chevron v. Echazabal: The ADA's "direct threat to self." Policy Brief Series: Righting the ADA, no. 9, February 27. http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/pdf/directthreat.pdf (accessed November 9, 2006).
43. Nationaler Ethikrat, ed. 2005. Prädiktive Gesundheitsinformationen bei Einstellungsuntersuchungen. Berlin: Nationaler Ethikrat.
44. Novas, Carlos, and Nikolas Rose. 2000. Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual. Economy and Society 29, no. 4: 485-513.
45. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 1993. Genetic screening. Ethical issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
46. Parker, Michael, and Anneke. Lucassen. 2002. Working towards ethical management of genetic testing. The Lancet 360:1685-87.
47. Pate v. Threlkel. 661 So. 2d 278 (1995).
48. Petersen, Alan, and Robin Bunton. 2002. The new genetics and the public's health. London: Routledge.
49. Petrila, John. 2001. Genetic risk: The new frontier for the duty to warn. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 19:405-21.
50. Rapp, Rayna. 2000. Testing women, testing the fetus: The social impact of amniocentesis in America. New York: Routledge.
51. Rothstein, Mark A. 1997. Genetic secrets: Protecting privacy and confidentiality in the genetic era. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
52. Safer v. Pack. 677 A.2d 188 (App. Div. NJ, 1996).
53. Sass, Hans-Martin. (1994). Der Mensch im Zeitalter von genetischer Diagnostik und Manipulation. Kultur, Wissen und Verantwortung. In Wieviel Genetik braucht der Mensch? Die alten Träume der Genetiker und ihre heutigen Methoden, edited by Ernst Peter Fischer and Erhard Geißler, 339-53 Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz.
54. Sass, Hans-Martin. (2003). Patienten- und Bürgeraufklärung über genetische Risikofaktoren. In Patientenaufklärung bei genetischem Risiko, edited by Hans-Martin Sass and Peter Schröder, 41-55 Münster u.a.: Lit-Verlag.
55. Shakespeare, Tom. (2003). Rights, risks and responsibilities: New genetics and disabled people. In Debating biology: Sociological reflections on health, medicine and society, edited by S. J. Williams, L. Birke, and G. A. Bendelow, 198-209 London: Routledge.
56. Steinberg, Deborah Lynn. 1996. Languages of risk: Genetic encryptions of the female body. Women: A Cultural Review 7:259-70.
57. Tarasoff et al. v. The Regents of the University of California et al. 17 Cal.3d 425 (1976).
58. Thébaud Mondy, Annie. 1999. Genetische Diskriminierung am Arbeitsplatz. Le Monde Diplomatique, May 14, 7.
59. Twiss, Sumner B. (1974). Ethical issues in genetic screening: Models of genetic responsibility. In Ethical, social and legal dimensions of screening for human genetic disease, edited by Daniel Bergsma, 225-61 New York: Stratton Intercontinental Medical.
60. Tzorzis, Andreas. 2004. Are you (genetically) up to the job? Deutsche Welle 25 (October): http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1369432,00.html (accessed October 26, 2004).
61. Zinke, Eva. 2003. Der gläserne Mensch in der Arbeitswelt. Gen-Ethischer Informationsdienst 19, no. 158: 23-25.