Prenatal diagnosis for "minor" genetic abnormalities is ethical

American Journal of Bioethics

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2003, Pages W60-W65

  Boyle, Robert J ^a   Savulescu, Julian ^b  

^a MURDOCH CHILDREN'S RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABORTION; ANALYTICAL APPROACH; ARTICLE; CONGENITAL MALFORMATION; ETHICS; FEMALE; FETUS; GENETICS; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HEMOPHILIA A; HETEROZYGOTE; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MALE; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PUBLIC OPINION;

ANALYTICAL APPROACH; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION;

ABNORMALITIES; ABORTION, EUGENIC; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; FEMALE; FETUS; HEMOPHILIA A; HETEROZYGOTE; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; MALE; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PREIMPLANTATION DIAGNOSIS; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PUBLIC OPINION;

EID: 85012571191     PISSN: 15265161     EISSN: 15360075     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/152651603322781648     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Allen, K., and R. Williamson. 1999. Should we genetically test everyone for haemochromatosis? J Med Ethics 25: 209-214.
2. Benagiano, G., and P. Bianchi. 1999. Sex preselection: an aid to couples or a threat to humanity? Hum Reprod 14: 868-870.
3. Bohn, R.L. 2000. The economics of bleeding disorders. Haemophilia 6: 491-493.
4. Bouchard, L., and M. Renaud. 1997. Female and male physicians’ attitudes toward prenatal diagnosis: a pan-Canadian survey. Soc Sci Med 44: 381-392.
5. Boyle, R.J., and J. Savulescu. 2001. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select a stem cell donor for an existing person is ethical. BMJ 323: 1240-1243.
6. Burke, W., A.L. Franks, and L.A. Bradley. 1999. Screening for hereditary hemochromatosis: are DNA-based tests the answer. Mol Med Today 5: 428-430.
7. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers. 1990. Recommendation No. R (90) 13 of the Committee of Ministeres to Member States on Prenatal Genetic Screening, Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis and associated Genetic Counseling. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
8. Department of Health. 2000. Government Response to the Recommendations made in the Chief Medical Officer´s Expert Group Report ´´Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility´´. Norwich: Her Majesty´s Stationary Office.
9. Department of Health Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. 2000. Prenatal Genetic Testing Consultation Document. London: Human Genetics Commission.
10. Francis, R.B., and C.K. Kasper. 1983. Reproduction in Haemophilia. JAMA 250: 3192-3195.
11. GeneTests TM, Children´s Hospital and Regional Medical Centre, Seattle, WA. World Wide Web URL: http://www.genetests.org
12. Genetic Interest Group. 1999. Genetic Testing, Screening and ’Eugenics’: A Genetic Interest Group Policy Paper. London: Genetic Interest Group. Available at URL: www.gig.org.uk
13. Gillam, L. 1999. Prenatal diagnosis and discrimination against the disabled. J Med Ethics 25: 163-171.
14. Handyside, A.H., E.H. Konotogianni, K. Hardy, and R.M.L. Winston. 1990. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y specific DNA amplification. Nature 244: 768-770.
15. Harper, P. 1998. Practical Genetic Counselling. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
16. Hart, H.L.A. 1963. Law, Liberty and Morality. California: Stanford University Press.
17. Hietala, M., A. Hakonen, A.R. Aro, P. Niemela, L. Peltonen, and P. Aula. 1995. Attitudes toward Genetic Testing amond the General Population and Relatives of Patients with a Severe Genetic Disease: A Survey from Finland. Am J Hum Genet 56: 1493-1500.
18. Holtug, N. 1997. Against gene therapy. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 6: 159. Human genome mutation database, Institute of Medical Genetics, Cardiff. World Wide Web URL:http://archive.uwcm.ac.uk/uwcm/mg/docs/hahaha.html
19. Human Genetics Commission. 2001. Public Attitudes to Human Genetic Information. London: Market and Opinion Research International. World Wide Web URL: www.servicefirst.gov.uk/index/pphome.htm
20. Human Genetics Commission. 2001. Response to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority on the Consultation on Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. London: Human Genetics Commission. Available at URL:www.hgc.gov.uk/business_publications_statement_pgd.htm
21. Human Genetics Society of Australasia. 1997. Prenatal Diagnosis Policy. Sydney: Human Genetics Society of Australasia. World Wide Web URL: www.hgsa.com.au.
22. Jeffrey, G.P., and P.C. Adams. 2000. Pitfalls in the genetic diagnosis of hereditary hemochromatosis. Genet Test 4: 143-146.
23. Julian-Reynier, C., G. Macquart-Moulin, J.P. Moatti, A. Loundou, Y. Aurran, F. Chabal et al. 2001. Attitudes of women of childbearing age towards prenatal diagnosis in southeastern France. Prenatal Diagnosis 13: 613-627.
24. Lucotte, G., and G. Mercier. 2001. Population genetics of Factor V Leiden in Europe. Blood Cells Mol Dis Mar; 27: 362-7.
25. Mannucci, P.M., and E.G. Tuddenham. 2001. The Hemophilias-From Royal Genes to Gene Therapy. NEJM. 344: 1773-1779.
26. McKusick, V.A. 1994. Mendelian Inheritance in Man: A Catalog of Human Genetics and Genetic Disorders, 11th Edition. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
27. Miller, C.H., M.W. Hilgartner, and L.M. Aledort. 1987. Reproductive choices in hemophilic men and carriers. Am J Med Genet 26: 591-8.
28. National Opinion Research Center. 1987. General social surveys 1972-1987: cumulative codebook. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.
29. Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man, OMIM (TM). 2000. McKusick-Nathans Institute for Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, MD) and National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine (Bethesda, MD). World Wide Web URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim/.
30. Reilly, P. 1992. American Society of Human Genetics Statement on Clinical Genetics and Freedom of Choice. Am J Hum Genet 48:1011.
31. Rogers v Whitaker. 1992. 175 CLR 479. Royal Commission of New Reproductive Technologies. 1993. Proceed with Care. Ottawa: Minister of Government Services, Canada.
32. Savulescu, J. 1999. Sex selection-the case for. Med J Aust 171: 373-375.
33. Savulescu, J. 2001. Is current practice around late termination of pregnancy eugenic and discriminatory? Maternal interests and abortion. J Med Ethics 27: 165-171.
34. Simpson, J.L., and S.A. Carson. 1999. The reproductive option of sex selection. Hum Reprod 14: 870-872.
35. Statham, H., J. Green, C. Snowdon, and M. France-Dawson. 1993. Choice of baby’s sex. Lancet 341: 564-565.
36. Sureau, G. 1999. Gender selection: a crime against humanity or the exercise of a fundamental right? Hum Reprod 14: 867-868.
37. Tedgard, U., R. Ljung, and T.F. McNeil. 1999. Reproductive choices of haemophilia carriers. Br J Haem 106: 421-426.
38. Wertz, D.C., and J.C. Fletcher. 1988. Ethics and Medical Genetics in the United States: A National Survey. Am J Med Genet 29: 815-827.
39. Wertz, D.C., and J.C. Fletcher. 1989. Ethics and Human Genetics. A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
40. World Health Organisation. 1997. Proposed International Guidelines on Ethical Issues in Medical Genetics and Genetic Services. Geneva: World Health Organisation.