Why Non-Directiveness is Insufficient: Ethics of Genetic Decision Making and a Model of Agency [Book Review]

Medicine Studies 1 (2):113-129 (2009)
Abstract
There is no consensus about the ethical ideal of genetic counselling and decision making. This paper reviews and discusses some of the most prominent ethical arguments that have been brought forward against the non-directiveness principle (NDP), which has been the ethical gold standard for a long time. These arguments can be classed in four categories: (i) NDP can be against the best interests of the individuals concerned; (ii) NDP has ideological elements that do not adequately represent the counselling ethos; (iii) NDP was historically a defensive tool that protected the interests of geneticists against social criticism and against litigation; (iv) NDP falsely assumes individual responsibility and hides the shared responsibility of other social actors. The paper argues that a serious understanding of moral space, which people need in order to make ‘their own’ decisions, leads to a necessarily relational concept of agency. The positive counterpart of NDP is to allow a space for agency. Allowing agency implies offering the kind of support that the decision-making person really needs. To make a good decision about personal genetics implies being empowered to act as a contextually sensitive person who is aware of relationships and corresponding responsibilities
Keywords Genetic counselling  Genetic decisions  Non-directiveness  Agency  Gene tests  Disclosure  Genetic information  Informed consent  Genetics
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s12376-009-0023-7
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,727
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Moral Understandings: A Feminist Study In.Margaret Urban Walker - 1998 - In Stephen Everson (ed.), Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Genes in the Postgenomic Era.Paul E. Griffiths & Karola Stotz - 2006 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (6):499-521.
The Responsible Self.H. Richard Niebuhr - 1963 - New York: Harper & Row.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Virtue Ethics and Contractarianism.Bill Shaw - 1995 - Business Ethics Quarterly 5 (2):297-312.
The Role of Non-Directiveness in Genetic Counseling.Fuat S. Oduncu - 2002 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 5 (1):53-63.
The Role of Rules in Ethical Decision Making.Eugene C. Hargrove - 1985 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 28 (1-4):3 – 42.
Ethical Decision Making: Special or No Different? [REVIEW]Dawn R. Elm & Tara J. Radin - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 107 (3):313-329.
Added to PP index
2011-11-26

Total downloads
15 ( #325,293 of 2,197,328 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #299,047 of 2,197,328 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature