Abstract
The genetic testing of children raises many ethical concerns. This paper examines how five position statements from Canada, UK and USA, which present guidelines for good practice in this area produce different recommendations for carrier testing and predictive testing. We find that the genetic information generated through carrier testing is routinely presented as less serious than that generated from predictive testing. Additionally, the reproductive implications of predictive testing are also routinely erased. Consequently, the papers argue strongly against predictive testing but advise caution against carrier testing in somewhat weaker terms. We argue that these differences rest on assumptions about the status of reproduction in people’s lives and on an ethical stance that foregrounds the self over others. We propose that questioning the crude and sharp distinction between carrier and predictive testing in principle may enable practitioners and parents/families to make more nuanced decisions in practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP] (2001). Ethical issues with genetic testing in pediatrics (RE9924). Pediatrics, 107, 1451–1455.
American Medical Association (1996) Genetic testing of children (Policy, E-2.138). Retrieved December 2002, from http://www.ama-assn.org
American Society of Human Genetics & The American College of Medical Genetics [ASHG/ACMG] (1995). Points to consider: Ethical, legal and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. Am. J. Hum Genet, 57, 1233–1241.
Baier, A. (1994). Moral prejudices: Essays on ethics. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Belgian Society of Human Genetics (2003) Guidelines for predictive genetic testing for late onset disorders. Retrieved November 2003, from http://www.beshg.be/Pages/guidelines.html
Boddington, P., & Hogben, S. (2004) Drawing on diseases: The use of specific exemplars in formulating and applying principles governing genetic testing. Poster presented at HUGO Human Genome Meeting Berlin, Germany, April, 2004.
Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., & Spark, G. (1973). Invisible loyalties: Reciprocity in intergenerational family therapy. New York: Harper & Row.
Canadian Pediatric Society [CPS] (2003). Guidelines for genetic testing of health children, position statement (B 2003-01). Paediatric Child Health, 8(1), 42–45.
Clarke, A. (1998). The genetic testing of children. Oxford: Bios Scientific.
Clinical Genetics Society [CGS] (1994). The genetic testing of children: Report of a working party of the clinical genetics society (UK). Medical Genetics, 31, 785–797.
Corea, G. (1985). The mother machine: Reproductive technologies from artificial insemination to artificial wombs. New York: Harper & Row.
Dudgeon, M. R., & Inhorn, M. C. (2003). Gender, masculinity, and reproduction: anthropological perspectivas. International Journal of Men’s Health, 2, 31–57.
Dworkin, R. (1977).Taking rights seriously. London: Duckworth.
Edmondson, R. (1984). Rhetoric in sociology. London: Macmillan.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1993). Editor’s introduction. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 1–17). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Franklin, S. (1998). Making miracles: Scientific progress and the facts of life. In S. Franklin & H. Ragone (Eds.), Reproducing reproduction: Kinship, power, and technological innovation (pp. 102–117). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Genetic Interest Group [GIG] (1995). Genetics interest group response to the UK Clinical Genetics Society report “The genetic testing of children.” Journal of Medical Genetics, 32, 490–491.
Gillligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gillott, G. (1998). Childhood testing for carrier status: The perspective of the Genetic Interest Group. In A. Clarke (Ed.), The genetic testing of children (pp. 97–102). Oxford: Bios Scientific.
Glover, J. (Ed.). (1990).Utilitarianism and its critics. New York: MacMillan.
Hajer, M. A. (1993). Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 43–71). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Hajer, M. (2002). Discourse analysis and the study of policy making. European Political Science, 2(1), 61–65.
Hastings, A. (1998). Connecting linguistic structures and social practices: A discursive approach to social policy analysis. Journal of Social Policy, 27, 191–211.
Jackson, J. (2001). Truth, trust and medicine. Routledge: London.
Leehey, M. A., Munhoz, R. P., Lang, A. E., Brunberg, J. A., Grigsby, J., Greco, C., et al. (2003). The fragile X premutation presenting as essential tremor. Archives of Neurolology, 60, 117–121.
McConkie-Rosell, A., & DeVellis, B. M. (2000). Threat to parental role: A possible mechanism of altered self-concept related to carrier knowledge, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 9, 285–302.
McConkie-Rosell, A., & Spiridigliozzi, G. A. (2004). “Family matters”: A conceptual framework for genetic testing in children. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 13, 9–29.
Maier, K. E. (1989) Pregnant women: Fetal containers or people with rights? Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 4, 8–20.
Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
National Society of Genetic Counsellors (1995). Resolutions ballot: Prenatal and childhood testing for adult-onset disorders. Wallingford, PA: National Society of Genetic Counselors.
NIH (2004) Genetics home reference. Retrieved April 2004, from http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/ghr/glossary/
O’Neill, O. (2002). Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Parsons, E., & Atkinson, P. (1992). Lay constructions of genetic risk. Sociology of Health and Illness, 14, 437–455.
Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: ‘Limited access’ as a ‘fishing device.’ Sociological Inquiry, 50, 186–198.
Procter, A. M., Clarke, A. J., & Harper, P. S. (1999). Survey of genetic testing in childhood. Poster presentation, British Human Genetics Conference, University of York, 27–29 September 1999.
Purkis, J. (2003). The quintessential female act?: Learning about birth. In S. Earle & G. Letherby (Eds.), Gender, identity and reproduction: Social perspectives (pp. 103–120). Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke.
Rhodes, R. (1998). Genetic links, family ties, and social bonds: rights and responsibilities in the face of genetic knowledge. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 23, 10–30.
Schild, S. (1966).The challenging opportunity for social workers in genetics. Social Work, 11, 22.
Sherwin, S. (1998). A relational approach to autonomy in health care. In S. Sherwin (Ed.), The politics of women’s health: Exploring agency and autonomy (pp. 19–47). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Takala, T., & Häyry, M. (2001) Genetic information, autonomy, and rights. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 22, 403–414.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4, 249–283.
Wexler, N. S. (1992). The Tiresias complex: Huntington’s disease as a paradigm of testing for late-onset disorders. The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology Journal, 6, 2820–2825.
Woodward, K. (1997). Motherhood: Meanings and myths. In K. Woodward (Ed.), Identity and Difference (pp. 239–297). London: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Parts of this work have been presented in the 1st International CESAGen Conference, London, 2004, and Genetics and Society Meetings, Wales.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hogben, S., Boddington, P. Policy Recommendations for Carrier Testing and Predictive Testing in Childhood: A Distinction That Makes a Real Difference. J Genet Counsel 14, 271–281 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-005-4840-x
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-005-4840-x