Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The jurisprudence of genetic privacy

  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • The Sunday Times: 1996, ‘Health checks that carry a high risk’, 21 July.

  • Annas, G.J., L.H. Glantz and P.A. Roche: 1995, The Genetic Privacy Act and Commentary. Boston University School of Public Health, available at http://wwwbushph.bu.edu/Depts/HealthLaw/

  • Billings, P. and J. Beckwith: 1992, ‘Genetic testing in the workplace: a view from the USA’, Trends in Genetics8, pp. 198–200.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brandeis, L. and S. Warren: 1890, ‘The right to privacy’, Harvard Law Review4, pp. 193–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breard v City of Alexandria, 1947, 46 F 2d 337, DC La.

  • Calcutt, D., 1993, Review of Press Self-Regulation, Cm 2135.

  • Chadwick, R., M. Levitt and D. Shickle (eds): 1997, The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know, Aldershot: Avebury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Privacy and Related Matters: 1990, Report of the Committee on Privacy and Related Matters, Cm 1102.

  • Entick v Carrington: 1765, 19 State Tr 1029. European Privacy Directive, 1995: 95/46 OJ, No C 93/3, April 13.

  • Gormley, K.: 1992, ‘One hundred years of privacy’, Wisconsin Law Review, pp. 1335–1441.

  • Gostin, L.: 1991, ‘Genetic discrimination: The use of genetically based diagnostic and prognostic tests by employers and insurers’, American Journal of Law and Medicine17, pp. 109–144.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gostin, L.: 1995, ‘Health information privacy’, Cornell Law Review80, pp. 451–477.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, H.: 1971, ‘Privacy and autonomy’. In: J.R. Pennock and J. Chapman (eds.), Privacy. New York: Atherton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellewell v Chief Constable of Derbyshire: 1995, 1 WLR 805.

  • Holtzman, N.A.: 1995, ‘The attempt to pass the Genetic Privacy Act in Maryland’, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics23, pp. 367–370.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons, National Heritage Committee: 1993, Fourth Report. Privacy and Media Intrusion, HC 294–I.

  • House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee: 1995, Third Report. Human Genetics: The Science and Its Consequences, HC 41–I.

  • Human Genetics Advisory Commission: 1997, The Implications of Genetic Testing.

  • Jackson, J.D.: 1997, ‘Playing the culture card in resisting crossjurisdictional transplants: A comment on legal processes and national culture’, Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law5, pp. 51–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye v Robertson: 1991, FSR 62.

  • Kevles, D.J. and L. Hood: 1992, The Code of CodesCambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khorasandjian v Bush: 1993, 3 WLR 476.

  • Kielstein, R. and H. Sass: 1992, ‘Right not to know or duty to know? Prenatal screening for polycystic renal disease’, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy17, pp. 395–405.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Malone v Lasky: 1907, 2 KB 141.

  • Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner: 1979, 1 Ch 344.

  • Marine Insurance Act: 1906.

  • Motherwell v Motherwell: 1976, 73 DLR (3rd) 62.

  • National Human Genome Research Institute: 1998, GeneticInformation and the Workplace. January, Available at http://www.nhgri.Hih.gov:80/HGP/Reports/genetics_workplace.html.

  • Ngwena, C. and R. Chadwick: 1993, ‘Genetic diagnostic information and the duty of confidentiality: Ethics and law’, Medical Law International1, pp. 73–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics: 1993, Genetic Screening: Legal and Ethical Issues.

  • Olmstead, v United States: 1928, 277 US at 478.

  • Parmet, W.E.: 1995, ‘Legislating privacy: The HIV experience’, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics23, pp. 371–376.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Patel v Patel: 1988, 2 FLR 179.

  • Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennysylvania v Casey: 1994, 510 US 1309.

  • Prince Albert v Strange: 1849, 41 ER 1171.

  • Prosser, W.: 1960, ‘Privacy’, California Law Review48, pp. 383–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • R v Khan: 1996, The Times, 5 July.

  • R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith: 1996, 1 All ER 257.

  • R v Sang: 1980, AC 402.

  • Re B (a minor)(Wardship:Sterilisation): 1988, AC 199.

  • The Rees Case: 1987, 2 FLR 111.

  • Re MW (Adoption: Surrogacy): 1995, 2 FLR 759.

  • Roe v Wade: 1973, US 113.

  • Rothstein, M.A.: 1992, ‘Discrimination based on genetic information’, Jurimetrics Journal33, pp. 13–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Suter, S.M.: 1993, ‘Whose genes are these anyway? Familial conflict over access to genetic information’, Michigan Law Review91, pp. 1856–1908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wacks, R.: 1995, Privacy and Press Freedom. London: Blackstone Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Queen's, University, Belfast, Northern, Ireland (E-mail

    Tony McGleenan

Authors
  1. Tony McGleenan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McGleenan, T. The jurisprudence of genetic privacy. Med Health Care Philos 1, 225–233 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009965009817

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009965009817

Keywords

Search

Navigation