Article Text
Abstract
Scientific and technological advances are lending pressure to expand the scope of newborn screening. Whereas this has great potential for improving child health, it also challenges our current perception of such programmes. Standard newborn screening programmes are clearly justified by the fact that early detection and treatment of affected individuals avoids significant morbidity and mortality. However, proposals to expand the scope and complexity of such testing are not all supported by a similar level of evidence for unequivocal benefit. We argue that screening for genetic susceptibility to complex disorders is inherently different from standard screening and, while of potential value, must be considered separately from conventional testing.
- predictive genetic testing
- newborn screening
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Parents' experiences of newborn screening for genetic susceptibility to type 1 diabetes
- Primary prevention of neurological illness early in life
- Economic evaluation of newborn deafness gene screening as a public health intervention in China: a modelling study
- What ethical and legal principles should guide the genotyping of children as part of a personalised screening programme for common cancer?
- Ethical issues in predictive genetic testing: a public health perspective
- Two faces of patient advocacy: the current controversy in newborn screening
- The new genetics: Genetic testing and public policy
- Effective screening leads to better outcomes in sickle cell disease
- Commercial predictive testing: the desirability of one overseeing body
- Newborn and childhood screening programmes: criteria, evidence, and current policy