Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-30T07:00:43.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - Genetic testing and screening

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

By
Ruth Chadwick
Edited by
Peter A. Singer  and
A. M. Viens
Ruth Chadwick
Affiliation:
Distinguished Research Professor Cardiff University, UK
Peter A. Singer
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
A. M. Viens
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Mr. and Mrs. A have recently had a baby son. They are both carriers of cystic fibrosis, although neither has the condition. Although they knew the risks of producing a child with cystic fibrosis, they decided to proceed with a pregnancy and now wish to know not only if their son has cystic fibrosis but also if he is a carrier.

Mrs. B attends her general practitioner wanting to be referred for a test for predisposition to breast cancer. Her mother had breast cancer and died at the age of 41. She is convinced that because of this family history she also may die prematurely, and she wishes to know the facts in planning her future life.

What is genetic testing and screening?

Although genetic testing and screening have a number of issues in common, they are different in their scope. Genetic “testing” applies to the determination of some genetic factor in an individual, whereas screening aims to ascertain the prevalence of such a factor in a population or population group where there is no evidence in advance that any particular individual has it (Danish Council of Ethics, 1993; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1993, 2006; Chadwick, 1998). Genetic testing is normally an issue when either an individual requests it, for example because of knowledge of a family history, or is referred by a medical practitioner. Screening programs, although they will involve actual testing of individuals, are typically part of a public health program, for example in response to a governmentdetermined need to address a given health issue.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Textbook of Bioethics , pp. 160 - 165
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chadwick, R. (1998). Genetic screening. In The Concise Encyclopedia of the Ethics of New Technologies, ed. Chadwick, R.. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 193–8.Google Scholar
Chadwick, R. (2004). Nutrigenomics, individualism and public health. Proc Nutr Soc 63: 161–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chadwick, R., Levitt, M., and Shickle, D. (eds.) (1997). The Right to Know and the Right not to Know. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
Clarke, A. (ed.) (1998). The Genetic Testing of Children, Oxford: Bios Scientific.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (1997). The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine. Brussels: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Cutter, A. M., Wilson, S., and Chadwick, R. (2004). Balancing powers. J Int Biotechnol Law 1: 187–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danish Council of Ethics (1993). Ethics and Mapping of the Human Genome. Copenhagen: Danish Council of Ethics.Google Scholar
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (2003). Ethical Aspects of Genetic Testing in the Workplace. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Fargher, E. A., Eddy, C., Payne, K., et al. (2006). Exploring patients' and healthcare professionals' views of pharmacogenetic testing. In From Genes to Patients: New Perspectives on Personalised Medicines. Warwick University, 5 July, symposium poster.Google Scholar
Food Ethics Council (2005). Getting Personal. Brighton: Food Ethics Council.Google Scholar
Genetic Interest Group (1998). Confidentiality Guidelines. London: Genetic Interest Group.Google Scholar
Häyry, M., Chadwick, R., Arnason, V., and Arnason, G. (eds.) (2007). The Ethics and Governance of Human Genetic Databases: European Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–13, 43–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Human Genetics Commission (2003). Inside Information: Balancing Interests in the Use of Personal Genetic Data. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) Ethics Committee (1996). Statement on the Principled Conduct of Genetic Research. London: HUGO.Google Scholar
Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) Ethics Committee (1998). Statement on DNA Sampling, Control and Access. London: HUGO.Google Scholar
Knoppers, B. and Chadwick, R. (2005). Human genetic research: emerging trends in ethics. Nat Rev Genet 6: 75–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (1993). Genetic Screening: Ethical Issues.London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2002). Genetics and Human Behaviour: The Ethical Context. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2003). Pharmacogenomics: Ethical Issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2006). Genetic Screening: A Supplement to the 1993 Report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
Parker, M. and Lucassen, A. (2004). Genetic information: a joint account? BMJ 329: 165–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roses, A. D. (2004). Pharmacogenetics and drug development: the path to safer and more effective drugs. Nat Rev Genet 5: 645–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royal College of Physicians with the Royal College of Pathologists and the British Society for Human Genetics (2006). Consent and Confidentiality in Genetic Practice: Guidance on Genetic Testing and Sharing Genetic Information. A Report of the Joint Committee on Medical Genetics. London: Royal College of Physicians of London.Google Scholar
UK Government and Association of British Insurers (2005). Concordat and Moratorium on Genetics and Insurance. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
UK National Screening Committee (2003). Criteria for Appraising the Viability, Effectiveness and Appropriateness of a Screening Programme. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
UNESCO (1997). The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, 11 November. New York: United Nations.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×