Three recent reports on genetic screening published in the United Kingdom, Denmark and the Netherlands are discussed. Comparison of the Dutch report with the Danish and the Nuffield reports reveals that the Dutch report focuses on the aim of enlarging the scope for action, emphasising protection of autonomy and self-determination of the screenee more than the other two reports. The three reports have in common that the main concern is with concrete issue such as stigmatisation, discrimination, protection of the private sphere and issues linked with labour and insurance. Some potential long term consequences, however, tend to be neglected or underestimated. These omissions are pointed out.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Other content recommended for you
- Parental share in public and domestic spheres: a population study on gender equality, death, and sickness
- Can we justify eliminating coercive measures in psychiatry?
- The right not to know: an autonomy based approach
- SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and myocarditis or myopericarditis: population based cohort study
- Health incentive research and social justice: does the risk of long term harms to systematically disadvantaged groups bear consideration?
- Novel therapies for diabetes mellitus in pregnancy
- Reproductive carrier screening: responding to the eugenics critique
- Genetic screening and occupational and environmental exposures
- Just a family medical history?
- Newborn screening: new developments, new dilemmas