Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. (1 other version)Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for “Non-Medical” Traits: Ensuring Consistency in Ethical Decision-Making.Hilary Bowman-Smart, Christopher Gyngell, Cara Mand, David J. Amor, Martin B. Delatycki & Julian Savulescu - 2021 - American Journal of Bioethics 23 (3):3-20.
    The scope of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) could expand in the future to include detailed analysis of the fetal genome. This will allow for the testing for virtually any trait with a genetic contribution, including “non-medical” traits. Here we discuss the potential use of NIPT for these traits. We outline a scenario which highlights possible inconsistencies with ethical decision-making. We then discuss the case against permitting these uses. The objections include practical problems; increasing inequities; increasing the burden of choice; negative (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Prenatal screening and prenatal diagnosis: contemporary practices in light of the past.Ana S. Iltis - 2016 - Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (6):334-339.
    The 20th century eugenics movement in the USA and contemporary practices involving prenatal screening (PNS), prenatal diagnosis (PND), abortion and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) share important morally relevant similarities. I summarise some features of the 20th century eugenics movement; describe the contemporary standard of care in the USA regarding PNS, PND, abortion and PGD; and demonstrate that the ‘old eugenics’ the contemporary standard of care share the underlying view that social resources should be invested to prevent the birth of people (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Overcritical, overfriendly? : A dialogue between a sociologist and a philosopher on genetic technology and its applications.Mairi Levitt & Matti Häyry - 2005 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 8 (3):377-383.
    Are sociologists always critical about genetics? Are philosophers always more supportive? This is the impression of many sociologists in the United Kingdom who argue that contemporary British philosophers criticise genetic technologies and applications in ways that scientists and medical doctors can deal with. They emphasise matters like informed consent, but pay less or no attention to the wider social consequences of technologies, practices and policies. Philosophers in their turn may see sociologists as irrationally hostile to science and medical practice. Some (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation