Using the Best Interests Standard to Decide Whether to Test Children for Untreatable, Late-Onset Genetic Diseases.
A new analysis of the Best Interests Standard is given and applied to the controversy about testing children for untreatable, severe late-onset genetic diseases, such as Huntington's disease or Alzheimer's disease. A professional consensus recommends against such predictive testing, because it is no...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Medicine & Philosophy Vol. 32; no. 4; pp. 375 - 395 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Oxford University Press / USA
Jul/Aug2007
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=26288639&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 26288639 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 03605310 MPS jtl: Journal of Medicine & Philosophy issn: 03605310 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jul/Aug2007 vid: 32 iid: 4 pid: 622 pub: Oxford University Press / USA artinfo: ui: 26288639 10.1080/03605310701515252 ppf: 375 ppct: 20 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 127KB tig: atl: Using the Best Interests Standard to Decide Whether to Test Children for Untreatable, Late-Onset Genetic Diseases. aug: au: Kopelman, Loretta M. affil: Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina su: Medical ethics Decision making in pediatrics Human chromosome abnormality diagnosis Alzheimer's disease Huntington disease Informed consent (Medical law) sug: subj: Medical ethics Decision making in pediatrics Human chromosome abnormality diagnosis Alzheimer's disease Huntington disease Informed consent (Medical law) keyword: best interest children ethics genetics Huntington's disease law pediatrics rights ab: A new analysis of the Best Interests Standard is given and applied to the controversy about testing children for untreatable, severe late-onset genetic diseases, such as Huntington's disease or Alzheimer's disease. A professional consensus recommends against such predictive testing, because it is not in children's best interest. Critics disagree. The Best Interests Standard can be a powerful way to resolve such disputes. This paper begins by analyzing its meaning into three necessary and jointly sufficient conditions showing it: 1. is an "umbrella" standard, used differently in different contexts, 2. has objective and subjective features, 3. is more than people's intuitions about how to rank potential benefits and risks in deciding for others but also includes evidence, established rights, duties and thresholds of acceptable care, and 4. can have different professional, medical, moral and legal uses, as in this dispute. Using this standard, support is given for the professional consensus based on concerns about discrimination, analogies to adult choices, consistency with clinical judgments for adults, and desires to preserve of an open future for children. Support is also given for parents' legal authority to decide what genetic tests to do. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: © 2019 Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Inc.. item: Journal of Medicine & Philosophy holder: Oxford University Press / USA dt: @attributes: year: 2007 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|