Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening: From the Clinic to the Population.

IF 1.4 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Public Health Ethics Pub Date : 2021-06-14 eCollection Date: 2021-07-01 DOI:10.1093/phe/phab017
Lisa Dive, Ainsley J Newson
{"title":"Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening: From the Clinic to the Population.","authors":"Lisa Dive, Ainsley J Newson","doi":"10.1093/phe/phab017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RCS) is increasingly being offered more widely, including to people with no family history or otherwise elevated chance of having a baby with a genetic condition. There are valid reasons to reject a prevention-focused public health ethics approach to such screening programs. Rejecting the prevention paradigm in this context has led to an emphasis on more individually-focused values of freedom of choice and fostering reproductive autonomy in RCS. We argue, however, that population-wide RCS has sufficient features in common with other public health screening programs that it becomes important also to attend to its public health implications. Not doing so constitutes a failure to address the social conditions that significantly affect people's capacity to exercise their reproductive autonomy. We discuss how a public health ethics approach to RCS is broader in focus than prevention. We also show that additional values inherent to ethical public health-such as equity and solidarity-are essential to underpin and inform the aims and implementation of reproductive carrier screening programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":49136,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Ethics","volume":"14 2","pages":"202-217"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3b/6b/phab017.PMC8510688.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phab017","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RCS) is increasingly being offered more widely, including to people with no family history or otherwise elevated chance of having a baby with a genetic condition. There are valid reasons to reject a prevention-focused public health ethics approach to such screening programs. Rejecting the prevention paradigm in this context has led to an emphasis on more individually-focused values of freedom of choice and fostering reproductive autonomy in RCS. We argue, however, that population-wide RCS has sufficient features in common with other public health screening programs that it becomes important also to attend to its public health implications. Not doing so constitutes a failure to address the social conditions that significantly affect people's capacity to exercise their reproductive autonomy. We discuss how a public health ethics approach to RCS is broader in focus than prevention. We also show that additional values inherent to ethical public health-such as equity and solidarity-are essential to underpin and inform the aims and implementation of reproductive carrier screening programs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
生殖遗传载体筛查的伦理问题:从临床到人口。
生殖遗传携带者筛查(RCS)越来越广泛地提供给人们,包括没有家族史或生育遗传病婴儿几率较高的人。我们有充分的理由拒绝对此类筛查项目采取以预防为主的公共卫生伦理方法。在这种情况下,摒弃预防范式导致在生殖健康服务中更多地强调以个人为中心的自由选择和促进生殖自主的价值观。但我们认为,全民生殖健康服务与其他公共卫生筛查项目有足够的共性,因此关注其对公共卫生的影响也很重要。如果不这样做,就没有解决严重影响人们行使生殖自主能力的社会条件问题。我们讨论了针对生殖健康检查的公共卫生伦理方法如何比预防更为广泛。我们还表明,公共卫生伦理固有的其他价值观--如公平和团结--对于支持和指导生殖带菌者筛查计划的目标和实施至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Public Health Ethics
Public Health Ethics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-MEDICAL ETHICS
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
9.50%
发文量
28
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Public Health Ethics invites submission of papers on any topic that is relevant for ethical reflection about public health practice and theory. Our aim is to publish readable papers of high scientific quality which will stimulate debate and discussion about ethical issues relating to all aspects of public health. Our main criteria for grading manuscripts include originality and potential impact, quality of philosophical analysis, and relevance to debates in public health ethics and practice. Manuscripts are accepted for publication on the understanding that they have been submitted solely to Public Health Ethics and that they have not been previously published either in whole or in part. Authors may not submit papers that are under consideration for publication elsewhere, and, if an author decides to offer a submitted paper to another journal, the paper must be withdrawn from Public Health Ethics before the new submission is made. The editorial office will make every effort to deal with submissions to the journal as quickly as possible. All papers will be acknowledged on receipt by email and will receive preliminary editorial review within 2 weeks. Papers of high interest will be sent out for external review. Authors will normally be notified of acceptance, rejection, or need for revision within 8 weeks of submission. Contributors will be provided with electronic access to their proof via email; corrections should be returned within 48 hours.
期刊最新文献
From Self-Management to Shared-Management: A Relational Approach for Equitable Chronic Care The Application of Australian Rights Protections to the Use of Hepatitis C Notification Data to Engage People ‘Lost to Follow Up’ Time to Treat the Climate and Nature Crisis as One Indivisible Global Health Emergency. Psychedelics in PERIL: The Commercial Determinants of Health, Financial Entanglements and Population Health Ethics The Liberalism of Fear and Public Health Ethics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1