Advertisement

From Social Movement to Clinical Medicine — The Role of Law and the Medical Profession in Regulating Applied Human Genetics

  • James R. Sorenson

Abstract

The role of law and medicine in controlling applied human genetics has been and continues to be complex in our society. It is not the intention of this discussion to analyze the multifaceted nature of the relationships among law, medicine, and genetics, but rather to select for purposes of discussion a limited facet of this large topic. Since the early 1900’s the institutional base of applied human genetics has changed significantly. With these changes the role of law and medicine has varied in terms of controlling the uses of, or limiting access to human genetics in the solution of a large number of problems. It is the intent of this discussion to examine some of the major changes in the institutional base of applied human genetics, comparing the period from 1900 to 1930 with the period from the late 1950’s up to the present. Our specific interest will be to analyze the manner in which law and medicine have acted as regulatory vehicles over applied human genetics during these two periods. It should be noted that in the following discussion attention is given primarily to control of the application of genetic knowledge and technologies. We are not concerned with the role of law and medicine as regulatory vehicles encouraging or imposing constraints on the discovery of genetic knowledge.

Keywords

Genetic Counseling Prenatal Diagnosis Social Movement Genetic Knowledge Applied Genetic 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Haller, M.H., “Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought,” Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick (1963).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ludmerer, K.M., “Genetics and American Society: A Historical Appraisal,” The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1972)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allen, G.E., Science and society in the eugenic thought of H.J. Müller, in “Genetics and Society”, J.B. Bressler (ed.), Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading (1973).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sarason, S. and Dorrs, J., “Psychological Problems in Mental Deficiency,” Harper and Row, New York (1969).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pickens, D.K., “Eugenics and the Progressives,” Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville (1968).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farrow, M., Juberg, R., Genetics and laws ‘prohibiting’ marriage in the United States, J.A.M.A. 209: 534 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ludmerer, K.M., The American geneticist and the eugenic movement; 1905–1935, J. Hist. Biol. 2: 337 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scheinfeld, A., The public and human genetics, Acta Genet. Stat. Med. 7: 487 (1957).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sorenson, J.R., “Social and Psychological Aspects of Applied Human Genetics: A Bibliography,” Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 73–412 (1973).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bergsma, D., Zappa, M., Roblin, R. et al (eds.), “Dimensions of Screening for Human Genetic Disease,” Stratton Intercontinental Medical Book Corp., New York (1974).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Milunsky, A., “The Prenatal Diagnosis of Hereditary Disorders,” Charles C. Thomas, Springfield (1973).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Powledge, T., Genetic screening as a political and social development, in Dimensions of Screening for Human Genetic Disease, D. Bergsma, M. Zappa, R. Roblin et al (Eds.), Stratton Intercontinental Medical Book Corp., New York (1974).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hammonds, H., “Hereditary Counseling” American Eugenics Society, New York (1957).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Foundation-March of Dimes, International Directory of Genetic ServicesNew York (1974).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Epstein, C., Who should do genetic counseling and under what circumstances, in “Birth Defects Original Article Series,” D. Bergsma (ed.) Vol. IX, p. 39.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sorenson, J., Biomedical innovation, uncertainty, and doctor-patient interaction, J. Hlth Soc. Behav. 15 (4): 366 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Motulsky, A., Fräser, G., Felsenstein, J., Public health and long-term genetic implications of intrauterine diagnosis and selective abortion, in Birth Defects: Original Article Series Vol. VII, No. 5, p. 227Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leonard, C., Chase, G. and Childs, B., Genetic counseling: a consumer’s view, New Eng. J. Med. 287: 433 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carter, C., Evans, K., Fraser-Roberts, J.A. et al, Genetic clinic: a follow-up, Lancet 1: 281 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Golbus, M., Conte, F., Schneider, E. et al, Intrauterine diagnosis of genetic defects, Amer. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 118: 897 (1974).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hilton, B., Callahan, D., Harris, M. et al, “Ethical Issues in Human Genetics,” Plenum Press, New York (1973).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Freidman, J., “Legal Implications of Amniocentesis,” Univ. of Penn. Law Rev. 123: 92 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • James R. Sorenson
    • 1
  1. 1.Boston University School of MedicineUSA

Personalised recommendations