The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 16 (1):99-131 (2016)
AbstractSubstantial medical evidence shows that about half of ovarian cancers originate in the fallopian tube. Some medical organizations and clinical articles have suggested opportunistic salpingectomy to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer in patients at average risk of developing it. This entails removing the fallopian tubes at the same time as another procedure that would occur anyway. The authors argue that the principles of totality and double effect can justify such salpingectomies, even though there is a low incidence of ovarian cancer. Since screening tools for ovarian cancer are ineffective and treatment options are poor, the good effect of reducing the risk of death from this type of ovarian cancer can be proportionate to the bad effects of the minor increase in surgical risk over the other procedure, the unintended side effect of infertility, and the removal of normally functioning tissue. The authors conclude that it is within the purview of a patient and physician to determine whether the benefits are proportionate to the risks in a particular case.
Similar books and articles
Risk-Reducing Salpingectomy and Ovarian Cancer.Rachelle Barina - 2014 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 14 (1):67-79.
Cost-effectiveness of predictive genetic tests for familial breast and ovarian cancer.Nikki Breheny, Elizabeth Geelhoed, Jack Goldblatt & Peter O'Leary - 2005 - Genomics, Society and Policy 1 (2):67-79.
Much more than a gene: hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, reproductive choices and family life. [REVIEW]Catherine Dekeuwer & Simone Bateman - 2013 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 16 (2):231-244.
Encounters with medical professionals: a crisis of trust or matter of respect? [REVIEW]Nina Hallowell - 2008 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 11 (4):427-437.
Genetic Testing after Breast Cancer Diagnosis: Implications for Physician-Patient Communications.Nancy Berlinger - 2004 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 13 (4):417-419.
Collective Fear, Individualized Risk: the social and cultural context of genetic testing for breast cancer.N. Press, J. R. Fishman & B. A. Koenig - 2000 - Nursing Ethics 7 (3):237-249.
Two Chicks in a Lab with Eggs.Lisa Campo-Engelstein & Sarah B. Rodriguez - 2011 - Hastings Center Report 41 (3):21-23.
Uninformed consent: Mass screening for prostate cancer.Stewart Justman - 2012 - Bioethics 26 (3):143-148.
Genetic Testing for Susceptibility to Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Case Study of Clinical Decision-Making in Medical Genetics.Andrea Edith Glassberg - 1997 - Dissertation, University of Washington
Experiential Knowledge, Moral Agency and Genetic Testing for Hereditary Breast/Ovarian Cancer.Lorraine D'agincourt-Canning - 2003 - Dissertation, The University of British Columbia (Canada)
“Your risk is low, because …”: argument-driven online genetic counselling.Uwe Hartung, Sara Rubinelli & Peter J. Schulz - 2010 - Argument and Computation 1 (3):199-214.
Book reviews. [REVIEW]Ian D. Graham, Raymond Spier & Carlos Bertha - 1996 - Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (1):121-122.
Unmasking risk loci: DNA methylation illuminates the biology of cancer predisposition.Dvir Aran & Asaf Hellman - 2014 - Bioessays 36 (2):184-190.
What's Wrong With Chemoprevention of Prostate Cancer?Stewart Justman - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (12):21-25.
Understanding the genetically at risk: clinical, psychological and social approaches.Lyn Turney - 2009 - Genomics, Society and Policy 5 (2):53-66.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads