Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 397–405 | Cite as

The sense of responsibility in the context of professional activities in Medical Genetics

Scientific Contribution


Medical Genetics is a relatively new field of scientific work that involves a lot of enthusiastic professionals, both in routine (clinical) and research (scientific projects). In either field, different geneticists feel different responsibilities for their work, either because they are different people (personal responsibility) or because they have a different rank in the respective departments (professional responsibility). This paper presents the philosophical views of several authors on the sense of responsibility from the Classical times until the present and reveals the practical, daily responsibilities that are met by these professionals, in four areas of responsibility: personal, professional, scientific and sociatal framework.


Responsibility Medical Genetics Geneticists Professional ethics Human rights 


  1. Anderson, W. 1994. Ethics, reproduction and genetic control–human gene therapy: Scientific and ethical considerations. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. 1983. Éthique à Nicomaque (trad.). Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, L., and C. Becker. 1992. Responsibility. Encyclopedia of ethics, vol. II, L-index. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Blondel, M. 1934. La Pensée, II: les responsabilités de la pensée et la possibilite de son achèvement. Paris: ed. Alcan.Google Scholar
  5. Brody, B.A. 1998. The ethics of biomedical research–an international perspective. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bronowski. 1992. A Responsabilidade do Cientista e outros escritos. Lisboa: Publ. Dom Quixote.Google Scholar
  7. Camps, V. 1990. Virtudes públicas, 66–67. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
  8. Cho, M.K., and D.A. Relman. 2010. Genetic technologies. Synthetic “life”, ethics, national security, and public discourse. Science 329(5987): 38–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Habermas, J. 2003. The future of human nature, 60–66. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  10. Hawkins, A. 2010. Biobanks: Importance, implications and opportunities for genetic counselors. J Genet Couns 19(5): 423–429.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Howard, H., B. Knoppers, and P. Borry. 2010. Blurring lines. The research activities of direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies raise questions about consumers as research subjects. EMBO 11(8): 579–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jonas, H. 1995. Le principe responsabilité, 3e ed, 30–31. Paris: Cerf.Google Scholar
  13. Kant, I. 1986. Fundamentação da metafísica dos costumes. Lisboa: P. Quintela. ed. 70.Google Scholar
  14. MacNabb, D.C. 1951. David Hume: His theory of knowledge and morality, 159–165. Oxford: The Mayflower Press.Google Scholar
  15. Marcel, G. 1967. Essai de philosophie concrète, 170–171. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  16. Mounier, E. 1961. Oeuvres I, 523. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  17. Nordgren, A. 2010. Responsible genetics, 52–53. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Official Journal of the European Communities. 2000. Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, pp. C 364/1–C 364/22 (available at www.europarl.europa.en/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf).
  19. Onions, C.T. (ed.). 1990. The shorter Oxford English dictionary on historical principles, vol II, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Reilly, P., M. Boshar, and S. Holtzman. 1997. Ethical issues in genetic research: Disclosure and informed consent. Nature Genetics 15: 16–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ricouer, P. 1992. The concept of responsibility: An essay in semantic analysis. The just. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ricouer, P. 1990. Soi-même comme un autre. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  23. Resnik, D.B. 1998. Standards of ethical conduct in science, in the ethics of science–an introduction, 63–65. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Sartre, J.P. 1943. L’être et le néant. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  25. Schwarts, C. (ed.). 1994. The chambers dictionary, 1467. Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. UNESCO, Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UDBHR). 2005. UNESCO (available at:
  27. UNESCO, International Bioethics Committee. 2010. Social and human sciences, 2010 (available at:
  28. United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). 2010. (available at:
  29. Wertz, D.C., B.K. Fletcher, and V. Boulyjenkov. 1995. Guidelines on ethical issues in medical genetics and the provision of genetic services. Switzerland: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  30. Wertz, D.C., Fletcher, J.C., Berg, K. 2003. Review of ethical issues in medical genetics. World Health Organization, Human Genetics Programme (available in:…/en/ethical_issuesin_medgenetics%20report.pdf).
  31. Wertz, D.C., and J.C. Fletcher. 2004. Genethics and ethics in global perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Williams, G. 2009. Responsibility. In: Internet encyclopedia of philosophy (available in:
  33. WMA. 2008. Declaration of Helsinki (available in:…/index.html).

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Serviço de Bioética e Ética Médica, Faculdade de MedicinaUniversidade do Porto (FMUP)PortoPortugal
  2. 2.INSA, I.P.PortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations