Advertisement

Screening – How?

  • Niklas JuthEmail author
  • Christian Munthe
Chapter
  • 1.1k Downloads
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 51)

Abstract

Besides the actual testing and analysis of samples, application of follow-up procedures, et cetera, screening programmes also involve the processes of contacting people for recruitment to the programme, informing them about the procedures prior to testing, as well as about the result of the test afterwards, counselling about possible follow up-procedures, and help with coping with the reactions to the test result. These features of screening programmes give rise to a host of questions of how screening programmes should be designed and conducted in these respects. Plausibly, all programmes should involve all of the tasks mentioned to some extent. But how much? And in what way? If ill-designed, the programme may end up not promoting the values it could have promoted and producing negative side-effects it could have avoided. So, even if defensible in terms of the condition targeted, the testing method utilised and the treatments available, a programme may still be open to serious criticism if organised in an inferior way. This has been underscored, e.g., in research on the new risk assessment methods in prenatal screening discussed in Section 3.2.1.

Keywords

Genetic Counselling Screening Programme Screen Programme Neonatal Screening Prenatal Screening 
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.

References

  1. Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th edition. New York, NY and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Danish Council of Ethics. 1999. Screening – A report. Copenhagen: The Danish Council of Ethics.Google Scholar
  3. ESHG (European Society of Human Genetics). 2003. Population genetic screening programmes: Technical, social and ethical issues. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. European Journal of Human Genetics 11:5–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fraser, F.C. 1974. Genetic counseling. American Journal of Human Genetics 26:636–659.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Häyry, M., and T. Takala. 2000. Genetic ignorance, moral obligations and social duties. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1:107–113.Google Scholar
  6. Hoedemaekers, R. 1999. Genetic screening and testing. A moral map. In The ethics of genetic screening, eds. R. Chadwick et al. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Holm, S. 1999. There is nothing special about genetic information. In Genetic information: Acquisition, access and control, eds. A.R. Thompson and R. Chadwick, 97–103. New York, NY: Kluwer Academics/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Justman, S. 2010. Uninformed consent: Mass screening for prostate cancer. Bioethics, Article first published online: 28 Jun 2010, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01826.x.Google Scholar
  9. Juth, N. 2005. Genetic information – values and rights: The morality of presymptomatic genetic testing. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  10. Kessler, S. 1997. Psychological aspects of genetic counseling. XI. Nondirectiveness revisited. American Journal of Medical Genetics 72:164–171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Munthe, C. 1996. The moral roots of prenatal diagnosis. Ethical aspects of the early introduction and presentation of prenatal diagnosis in Sweden. Göteborg: Centrum för forskningsetik.Google Scholar
  12. Munthe, C. 1999. Pure selection. The ethics of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and choosing children without abortion. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  13. Munthe, C., J. Wahlström, and S. Welin. 1998. Fosterdiagnostikens moraliska rötter. Goda handikappomsorger avgörande för den etiska kvaliteten (The moral roots of prenatal diagnosis. Good disability care crucial for the ethical quality). Läkartidningen (Physician’s Review) 95:750–753.Google Scholar
  14. Nijsingh, N. 2007. Informed consent and the expansion of newborn screening. In Ethics, prevention and public health, eds. A. Dawson and M. Verweij. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Parens, E., and A. Asch. 2000. Prenatal testing and disability rights. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Platt Walker, A. 1998. The practice of genetic counselling. In A guide to genetic counselling, ed. D.L. Baker, 1–20. Chichester: Wiley-Liss Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Saltvedt, S. 2005. Prenatal diagnosis in routine antenatal care – A randomised controlled trial. Stockholm: Kongl Carolinska Medico Chirurgiska Institutet.Google Scholar
  18. Sandman, L., and C. Munthe. 2009. Shared decision making and patient autonomy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30(4):289–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sandman, L., and C. Munthe. 2010. Shared decision making, paternalism and patient choice. Health Care Analysis 18(1):60–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shiloh, S. 1996. Decision-making in the context of genetic risk. In The troubled helix: Social and psychological implications of the new human genetics, eds. T. Marteau and M. Richards, 82–103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sobel, S.K., and D.B. Cowan. 2000. Impact of genetic testing for Huntington disease on the family system. American Journal of Medical Genetics 90:49–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ten Have, H. 2000. Genetics and culture. In Bioethics in a European perspective, eds. H. ten Have and B. Gordijn. Nijmegen: Programme of the European Masters in Bioethics.Google Scholar
  23. WHO. 1998. Proposed international guidelines on ethical issues in medical genetics and the provision of genetic services. Geneva: WHO 15–16 Dec 1997.Google Scholar
  24. Wilkinson, S. 2003. Bodies for sale. Ethics and exploitation in the human body trade. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Tännsjö, T. 1999. Coercive care. The ethics of choice in health and medicine. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Karolinska Institutet Dept. Learning, Informatics, Management & Ethics (LIME)StockholmSweden
  2. 2.Dept. Philosophy, Linguistics & Theory of ScienceUniversity of GöteborgGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations