Parental Autonomy and the Obligation Not to Harm One's Child Genetically

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 25 (1):5-15 (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Until recently, genetics counselors and medical geneticists considered themselves lucky if they could provide parents with predictive information about a small number of severe genetic disorders. Testing and counseling were indicated primarily for conditions of thithis s sort. Out of respect for the autonomy of parental reproductive decision making, the prevailing ethic of genetic counseling stressed nondirectiveness and value neutrality As summarized by Arthur Caplan, the hallmarks of this stance includea willingness to provide testing and counseling to all who voluntarily seek it, the presentation of information concerning findings in a manner that is balanced and comprehensible to patients or clients, the fair and balanced presentation of all options for action if a problem is discovered, a willingness to answer all questions asked by those seeking services, and an obligation to protect privacy and confidentiality at all times regardless of societal needs or benefits.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,401

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Corrections.Eileen Marie Wayne - 1997 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 25 (2-3):225-225.
Correspondence.Eileen Marie Wayne - 1997 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 25 (2-3):225-225.
Wisdom, casuistry, and the goal of reproductive counseling.Anders Nordgren - 2002 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 5 (3):281-289.
Value neutrality in genetic counseling: An unattained ideal.Christy A. Rentmeester - 2001 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4 (1):47-51.
Genetic Counseling, Testing, and Screening.Angus Clarke - 1998 - In Helga Kuhse & Peter Singer, A Companion to Bioethics. Malden, Mass., USA: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 245–259.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-31

Downloads
99 (#219,844)

6 months
7 (#469,699)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Qualifying choice: ethical reflection on the scope of prenatal screening.Greg Stapleton - 2017 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 20 (2):195-205.
Genetic Services, Economics, and Eugenics.Diane B. Paul - 1998 - Science in Context 11 (3-4):481-491.
Confronting Rationality.Ronald M. Green - 2011 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20 (2):216-227.

View all 16 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Reasons and Persons.Derek Parfit - 1984 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
Why We Should Reject S.Derek Parfit - 1984 - In Reasons and Persons. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
The paradox of future individuals.Gregory S. Kavka - 1982 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 11 (2):93-112.
When Is Birth Unfair to the Child?Bonnie Steinbock & Ron McClamrock - 1994 - Hastings Center Report 24 (6):15-21.

View all 10 references / Add more references