Screening and Discriminating: Resource Implications of the New Technology

  • W. R. Sheaff


Suppose it is 2011. The Humane Genome Project (HGP) finished 5 years ago, making new forms of genetic screening of very young embryos and foetuses possible. Older types of screening can now be carried out earlier and more reliably (e.g., to screen for the sex of the foetus and for ethnically-related conditions such as sickle cell anaemia). Young foetuses can now also be screened for predisposition to other conditions. Imagine these include so-called “deviances” such as homosexuality, alcoholism, criminality and manic depression (Tyler 1991); inherited dispositions to disease such as Parkinsonism or certain cancers and to mental illness; physical defects ranging from short-sightedness to quadriplegia; mild mental handicap; and personality traits ranging from general “intelligence” to athleticism.


Moral Judgement Genetic Screening Humane Genome Project Moral Perception Clinical Autonomy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beehler R (1978) Moral life. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Black D (1980) Inequalities in health. Department of Health and Social Security, London. [The Black Report]Google Scholar
  3. British Society for Social Responsibility in Science (1976) The new technology of repression BSSRS, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Daniels N (1985) Just health care. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Doyal L, Gough I (1984) A theory of human needs. Critical social policy 10: 6–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gauthier D (1987) Morals by agreement. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Gewirth A (1986) Why rights are indispensible. Mind 95: 329–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gillick V (1985) Contraception for children; whose choice? Whose responsibility? Ethical Issues in Caring Conference, Manchester, 7 September 1985Google Scholar
  9. Hare RM (1952) The language of morals. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Harris J (1986) The Survival Lottery. In: Singer P (ed) Applied ethics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Huxley J (1947) Evolutionary ethics. Pilot Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Jennet B (1983) High technology medicine. Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Maclntyre A (1981) After virtue. Duckworth, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Marx K, Engels F (1969) Manifesto of the Communist Party. Progress, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  15. McDowell J (1979) Virtue and reason. The Monist lxii: 331–350Google Scholar
  16. McKeown T (1976) The role of medicine. Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Mill JS (1969) Utilitarianism. Fontana, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Murdoch I (1970) The sovereignty of good. Routledge Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Ryan M (1991) USSR letter: Health Insurance in the Soviet Union. Br Med J 302 (6769) 170 (19th January 1991 ).Google Scholar
  20. Sheaff WR (1988) Needs and justice in health resource allocation. In: Fairbairn G, Fairbairn S (eds) Ethical issues in caring. Avebury, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  21. Sheaff WR (1990) An international comparison; the Leningrad experiment. In: Cook H (ed) The NHS - private sector interface. Longman, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  22. Stephen L (1882) The science of ethics. Smith and Elder, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Stocking B (1985) Initiative and inertia. Case studies in the NHS. Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Tyler A (1991) The Frankenstein Factor. Guardian 16–17 March 1991 pp 8–9, 27Google Scholar
  25. Wall A (1989) Ethics and the health service manager. Kings Fund, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. R. Sheaff

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations