Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Value neutrality in genetic counseling: An unattained ideal

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

Abstract

Beginning with a discussion of why value neutrality on the part of the genetics counselor does not necessarily preserve autonomy of the counselee, the idea that social values unavoidably underlie the articulation of risks and benefits of genetic testing is made explicit. Despite the best efforts of a counselor to convey “value neutral” facts, risk assessment by the counselee and family is done according to normative analysis, experience with illness, and definitions of health. Each of these factors must be known by the genetic counselor in order to relate those facts which she acknowledges as relevant to the decisions that will be made by those people seeking the genetic information.

Concisely, the scope of this paper includes the role of the genetic counselor in facilitating a family planning decision-making process. In the expression of genetic risks, the authority of medical language impacts a person's understanding of epidemiological data. By claiming that “value neutrality” is an ethos of genetic counselors, this implies that there exists a distinction between these scientific facts and personal values; this assumption is fallacious and should not be promoted to patients as a truth within the professional ethos statement of genetic counseling.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bosk, C.: 1993, ‘The workplace ideology of genetic counselors’, in: D. Bartels, B. LeRoy and A. Caplan (eds.), Prescribing Our Future: Ethical Challenges in Genetic Counseling. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, pp. 25–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, D.: 1991, ‘The ideal of shared decision making between physicians and patients’, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1, 38–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, A.: 1993, ‘Neutrality is not morality: The ethics of genetic counseling’, in: D. Bartels, B. LeRoy and A. Caplan (eds.), Prescribing Our Future: Ethical Challenges in Genetic Counseling. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, pp. 149–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M., et al.: 1990, ‘Parental perceptions of genetic risk: Correlation with choice of prenatal diagnostic procedures’, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 31, 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frets, P., et al.: 1990, ‘Factors influencing the reproductive decision after genetic counseling’, American Journal of Medical Genetics 35, 496–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervais, K.: 1993, ‘Objectivity, value neutrality, and nondirectiveness in genetic counseling’, in: D. Bartels, B. LeRoy and A. Caplan (eds.), Prescribing Our Future: Ethical Challenges in Genetic Counseling. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, pp. 119–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, S. and E. Levine: 1987, ‘Psychological aspects of genetic counseling. The subjective assessment of probability’, American Journal of Medical Genetics 28, 361–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research: 1983, Screening and Counseling for Genetic Conditions: The Ethical, Social, and Legal Implications of Genetic Screening, Counseling and Education Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, R.: 1989, ‘Chromosomes and communication: The discourse of genetic counseling’, in: L. Whiteford and M. Poland (eds.), New Approaches to Human Reproduction: Social and Ethical Dimensions. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, Inc, pp. 25–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, G.: 1996, ‘Clarifying the duties and goals of genetic counselors: Implications for nondirectiveness’, in: Morality and the New Genetics: A Guide for Students and Health Care Providers. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, pp. 125–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman: 1981, ‘The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice’, Science 211, 453–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachbroit, R. and D. Wasserman: 1995, ‘Clarifying the goals of nondirective genetic counseling’, Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy 15 (2 and 3), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaner, R.: 1994, ‘Experience and moral life: A phenomenological approach’, in: E. DuBose, R. Hamel and L. O'Connell (eds.), A Matter of Principles? Ferment in U.S. Bioethics. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, pp. 211–239.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, 801 McClung Tower, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 37996-0480, USA

    Christy A. Rentmeester

Authors
  1. Christy A. Rentmeester
    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

Rentmeester, C.A. Value neutrality in genetic counseling: An unattained ideal. Med Health Care Philos 4, 47–51 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009972728031

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009972728031

Search

Navigation