Confused legal and medical policy: the misconceptions of genetic screening.
Misconceptions about genetics and genetic decision-making lead to confused moral and legal policy in this area. Clarification is needed and provided about the nature of 'genetic disease' as not just an individual malady and often of multiple causation; about the stigma of guilt and discrimination which attends a label of genetically diseased; about the manner in which genetic decision-making impacts others making decisional privacy and confidentiality more problematic. The possibility of applying a public health model to genetic screening is explored and dismissed. A modified rights model, which gives more attention to familial obligations, is recommended with focus on a subjective substantial disclosure type of informed consent as appropriate to genetic decision-making.
Kegley
J A
JA
California State University, Bakersfield 93309, USA.
D001294:Attitude to Health; D003219:Confidentiality / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D003479:Curriculum; D003657:Decision Making; D004501:Education, Medical; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D005820:Genetic Testing / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000523:psychology / Q000592:standards*; D006167:Guilt; D006291:Health Policy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D010344:Patient Advocacy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011287:Prejudice; D011634:Public Health / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D014481:United States