23 found
Order:
  1.  3
    Anneke Lucassen, Guy Widdershoven, Suzanne Metselaar, Angela Fenwick & Michael Parker (2014). Genetic Testing of Children: The Need for a Family Perspective. American Journal of Bioethics 14 (3):26-28.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  2.  5
    Sandi Dheensa, Angela Fenwick & Anneke Lucassen (forthcoming). ‘Is This Knowledge Mine and Nobody Else's? I Don't Feel That.’ Patient Views About Consent, Confidentiality and Information-Sharing in Genetic Medicine: Table 1. Journal of Medical Ethics:medethics-2015-102781.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  1
    Angela Fenwick, Sandi Dheensa, Gillian Crawford, Shiri Shkedi-Rafid & Anneke Lucassen (2015). Rescue Obligations and Collective Approaches: Complexities in Genomics. American Journal of Bioethics 15 (2):23-25.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4.  7
    N. Hallowell, S. Cooke, G. Crawford, M. Parker & A. Lucassen (2009). Healthcare Professionals' and Researchers' Understanding of Cancer Genetics Activities: A Qualitative Interview Study. Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (2):113-119.
    Aims: To describe individuals’ perceptions of the activities that take place within the cancer genetics clinic, the relationships between these activities and how these relationships are sustained. Design: Qualitative interview study. Participants: Forty individuals involved in carrying out cancer genetics research in either a clinical (n = 28) or research-only (n = 12) capacity in the UK. Findings: Interviewees perceive research and clinical practice in the subspecialty of cancer genetics as interdependent. The boundary between research and clinical practice is described (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  5.  49
    A. Lucassen (2000). The Troubled Helix: Social and Psychological Implications of the New Human Genetics: Edited by Theresa Marteau and Martin Richards, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1999, 359 Pages, Pound18.95/US$29.95 (Pb). [REVIEW] Journal of Medical Ethics 26 (6):479-479.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  45
    Anneke Lucassen & Michael Parker (2006). The UK Genethics Club: Clinical Ethics Support for Genetic Services. Clinical Ethics 1 (4):219-223.
    The UK Genethics Club was established in November 2001 in order to provide a national forum of ethics support for the profession of clinical genetics in the UK. The forum brings together health professionals, medical ethicists and lawyers and support is provided through detailed discussion of cases and sharing of good practice. Clinical genetics professionals had previously voiced concerns about making extremely difficult ethical decisions, with profound implications, in something of a vacuum. Professionals saw a lack of guidance in the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  3
    A. Lucassen & A. Fenwick (2012). Testing Children for Adult Onset Conditions: The Importance of Contextual Clinical Judgement. Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (9):531-532.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  8.  2
    Anneke Lucassen (2015). I Had Genetic Testing for Alzheimer’s Disease Without My Consent. Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics 5 (3):214-216.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  11
    N. Hallowell, S. Cooke, G. Crawford, A. Lucassen, M. Parker & C. Snowdon (2010). An Investigation of Patients' Motivations for Their Participation in Genetics-Related Research. Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (1):37-45.
    Design: Qualitative interview study. Participants: Fifty-nine patients with a family history of cancer who attend a regional cancer genetics clinic in the UK were interviewed about their current and previous research experiences. Findings: Interviewees gave a range of explanations for research participation. These were categorised as social—research participation benefits the wider society by progressing science and improving treatment for everyone; familial—research participation may improve healthcare and benefit current or future generations of the participant’s family; and personal—research participation provides therapeutic or (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  10.  3
    S. Cooke, G. Crawford, M. Parker, A. Lucassen & N. Hallowell (2008). Recall of Participation in Research Projects in Cancer Genetics: Some Implications for Research Ethics. Clinical Ethics 3 (4):180-184.
    The aim of this study is to assess patients' recall of their previous research participation. Recall was established during interviews and compared with entries from clinical notes. Participants were 49 patients who had previously participated in different types of research. Of the 49 patients, 45 (92%) interviewees recalled 69 of 109 (63%) study participations. Level of recall varied according to the type of research, some participants clearly recalled the details of research aims, giving consent and research procedures. Others recalled procedures (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  11.  1
    Angela Fenwick, Shiri Shkedi-Rafid & Anneke Lucassen (2016). Relative Risk and Relatives' Risks in Genomic Medicine. American Journal of Bioethics 16 (2):25-27.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  5
    Anneke Lucassen (2005). Families and Genetic Testing: The Case of Jane and Phyllis. In Richard E. Ashcroft (ed.), Case Analysis in Clinical Ethics. Cambridge University Press 7--26.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  12
    N. Hallowell, S. Cooke, G. Crawford, M. Parker & A. Lucassen (2008). Ethics and Research Governance: The Views of Researchers, Health-Care Professionals and Other Stakeholders. Clinical Ethics 3 (2):85-90.
    The objective of this study is to describe researchers', health-care providers' and other stakeholders' views of ethical review and research governance procedures. The study design involved qualitative semi-structured interviews. Participants included 60 individuals who either undertook research in the subspecialty of cancer genetics (n = 40) or were involved in biomedical research in other capacities (n = 20), e.g. research governance and oversight, patient support groups or research funding. While all interviewees observed that oversight is necessary to protect research participants, (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  9
    D. McBride & A. Lucassen (2011). Mainstreaming Genetics: The Potential for Miscommunication. Clinical Ethics 6 (4):159-161.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  10
    A. Lucassen & J. Kaye (2006). Genetic Testing Without Consent: The Implications of the New Human Tissue Act 2004. Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (12):690-692.
    Despite its focus on consent the new Human Tissue Act 2004 allows for testing without consent where a relative could benefitIn recognition of the fact that genetic test results in people can have implications for close relatives, the new Human Tissue Act 2004 allows for a direction to access a person’s tissue so that testing can be carried out for the benefit of a relative, without the consent of that person. Clinical practice governed by common law and statute, before this (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  7
    R. Wheeler, P. Spargo & A. Lucassen (2011). The Shifting Sands of Patient Autonomy and Public Interest Considerations in Health Care. Clinical Ethics 6 (4):203-206.
    The past few decades have seen patient autonomy ascend to a prime position in health care. Patient consent is seen as a key component to expression of autonomy. Yet, interventions may also be justified without consent because they are deemed to be in the public interest. We observe some subtle shifts in balance in these justifications in health care and illustrate these with a range of examples. We hope thereby to stimulate a more explicit debate so that health-care professionals can (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  3
    Anneke Lucassen (2005). Response to Ethical Dissections of the Case. In Richard E. Ashcroft (ed.), Case Analysis in Clinical Ethics. Cambridge University Press 213.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18.  5
    A. Lucassen (1999). Inherited Susceptibility to Cancer: Clinical, Predictive and Ethical Perspectives. Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (6):551-551.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  8
    G. C. Crawford & A. M. Lucassen (2008). Disclosure of Genetic Information Within Families: A Case Report. Clinical Ethics 3 (1):7-10.
    There has been much discussion about what, if any, legal and moral duties professionals have to disclose relevant genetic information to the family members of someone with an identified disease predisposing mutation. Here, we present a case report where dissemination of such a genetic test result did not take place within a family. In contrast to previous literature, there appeared to be no deliberate withholding of information, instead distant relatives were unable to communicate relevant information appropriately. When communication was facilitated (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  4
    A. Lucassen (1995). Genes and Human Self-Knowledge. Journal of Medical Ethics 21 (4):250-250.
  21. G. C. Crawford & A. M. Lucassen (2008). Disclosure of Genetic Information Within Families: A Case Report. Clinical Ethics 3 (1):7-10.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. A. Lucassen & J. Montgomery, Predictive Genetic Testing in Children: Where Are We Now? An Overview and a UK Perspective.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Bert Molewijk & Anneke Lucassen (2011). Clinical Ethics Committee Case 14: How Should We Transfer a Euthanasia Request Between General Practice and a Hospital Setting? Clinical Ethics 6 (2):58-63.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography