Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. What ethical and legal principles should guide the genotyping of children as part of a personalised screening programme for common cancer?N. Hallowell, S. Chowdhury, A. E. Hall, P. Pharoah, H. Burton & N. Pashayan - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (3):163-167.
    Increased knowledge of the gene–disease associations contributing to common cancer development raises the prospect of population stratification by genotype and other risk factors. Individual risk assessments could be used to target interventions such as screening, treatment and health education. Genotyping neonates, infants or young children as part of a systematic programme would improve coverage and uptake, and facilitate a screening package that maximises potential benefits and minimises harms including overdiagnosis. This paper explores the potential justifications and risks of genotyping children (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Expanded Non-invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT).Zoë Claesen, Neeltje Crombag, Lidewij Henneman, Joris Robert Vermeesch & Pascal Borry - 2023 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 20 (1):41-49.
    Expanded non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has provoked ethical concerns about its justifiable scope. In this paper, we evaluate the role of the child’s right to an open future in setting the scope of NIPT. This ‘open future principle’ has been cited in arguments both limiting and expanding parental freedoms. This moral right holds that adult autonomy rights which children cannot yet exercise should nonetheless be protected until they can. Its purpose is to protect the future autonomy of the child as (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Defining the Scope of Public Engagement: Examining the “Right Not to Know” in Public Health Genomics.Clarissa Allen, Karine Sénécal & Denise Avard - 2014 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 42 (1):11-18.
    In this article, we explore the concept of a “right not to know” on a population rather than individual level. We argue that a population level “right not to know” is a useful concept for helping to define the appropriate boundaries of public engagement initiatives in the emerging public health genomics context.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Defining the Scope of Public Engagement: Examining the “Right Not to Know” in Public Health Genomics.Clarissa Allen, Karine Sénécal & Denise Avard - 2014 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 42 (1):11-18.
    While the realm of bioethics has traditionally focused on the rights of the individual and held autonomy as a defining principle, public health ethics has at its core a commitment to the promotion of the common good. While these two domains may at times conflict, concepts arising in one may also be informative for concepts arising in the other. One example of this is the concept of a “right not to know.” Recent debate suggests that just as there is a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations