Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Familial Cancer 1/2010

01.03.2010

A clinical perspective on ethical arguments around prenatal diagnosis and preimplantation genetic diagnosis for later onset inherited cancer predispositions

verfasst von: Tara Clancy

Erschienen in: Familial Cancer | Ausgabe 1/2010

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Prenatal diagnosis (PND) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for later onset and/or reduced penetrance inherited cancer predispositions, e.g. familial adenomatous polyposis, hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer/Lynch syndrome and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, raise a number of ethical issues. Some of these are the same as for conditions which present early in childhood, are fully penetrant and for which no/limited treatment options are possible; others relate to whether reduced penetrance and/or the availability of treatment mean that these are not serious (enough) conditions to warrant tests prior to/during pregnancy or to justify termination of pregnancy. However, attempts to reach a consensus on what counts as a serious (enough) condition in the context of PND and PGD have been unsuccessful. Such a definition may anyway be unhelpful if it cannot also take into account, for example, the woman’s/couple’s awareness and experience of the condition and the impact of the condition on affected individuals and their families. Individuals affected by, or at high risk of, later onset and/or reduced penetrance inherited cancer predispositions are generally supportive of access to PND and PGD for their own conditions, even if they would not consider using it themselves. Professionals working in clinical cancer genetics need to be prepared to discuss PND and PGD with this group of patients.
Fußnoten
1
FAP is a dominantly inherited predisposition to adenomatous colorectal polyps and bowel cancer. Polyps usually develop from puberty, and surveillance by colonoscopy starts from the age of 10–12 in children at ≥50% risk. There is an inevitable progression from polyps to malignancy in untreated patients, and colectomy is commonly carried out between the ages of 16–30.
 
2
The penetrance of a condition is the probability that a person who carries a gene mutation will develop the condition.
 
3
HNPCC/Lynch syndrome is a dominantly inherited predisposition to bowel and endometrial cancer in particular. Men have up to an 80% lifetime risk of bowel cancer, and women have up to a 70% lifetime risk of bowel cancer and a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer. The bowel cancer risk increases from the mid-twenties, and the endometrial cancer risk increases from the mid-thirties. Sub-total colectomy is recommended for a primary bowel tumour; as the efficacy of endometrial screening is unproven, hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy may be the most effective form of risk reduction.
 
4
BRCA1/2 are dominantly inherited genes which predispose to breast and ovarian cancer. Women have up to an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer (from the early-thirties) and up to a 60% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer (from around 40). Mammography and MRI screening can detect early breast cancers, but there is up to a 60% risk of a second primary breast cancer. The breast cancers in BRCA1 tend to be high grade and oestrogen receptor negative, and are associated with a poor prognosis. The efficacy of ovarian screening is unproven. Therefore, bilateral mastectomy and/or salpingo-oophorectomy are the most effective risk reducing measures.
 
5
In January 2004, the UK government announced a review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Part of the reason for this was that some issues the HFEA had considered over the previous few years had not been envisaged when the 1990 Act was drawn up. The review led to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.
 
6
The Regional Genetics Service based in Manchester serves a population of 4.5 million in the North West of England.
 
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Ekwo EE, Kim J-O, Gosselink CA (1987) Parental perceptions of the burden of genetic disease. Am J Med Genet 28:955–963CrossRefPubMed Ekwo EE, Kim J-O, Gosselink CA (1987) Parental perceptions of the burden of genetic disease. Am J Med Genet 28:955–963CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Frets PG, Duivenvoorden HJ, Verhage F et al (1990) Factors influencing the reproductive decision after genetic counseling. Am J Med Genet 35:496–502CrossRefPubMed Frets PG, Duivenvoorden HJ, Verhage F et al (1990) Factors influencing the reproductive decision after genetic counseling. Am J Med Genet 35:496–502CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Drugan A, Greb A, Johnson MP et al (1990) Determinants of parental decisions to abort for chromosome abnormalities. Prenat Diagn 10:483–490CrossRefPubMed Drugan A, Greb A, Johnson MP et al (1990) Determinants of parental decisions to abort for chromosome abnormalities. Prenat Diagn 10:483–490CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Wertz DC, Janes SR, Rosenfield JM et al (1992) Attitudes toward the prenatal diagnosis of cystic fibrosis: factors in decision making among affected families. Am J Hum Genet 50:1077–1085PubMed Wertz DC, Janes SR, Rosenfield JM et al (1992) Attitudes toward the prenatal diagnosis of cystic fibrosis: factors in decision making among affected families. Am J Hum Genet 50:1077–1085PubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Evans MI, Sobiecke MA, Krivchenia EL et al (1996) Parental decisions to terminate/continue following abnormal cytogenetic prenatal diagnosis: “What” is still more important than “When”. Am J Med Genet 61:353–355CrossRefPubMed Evans MI, Sobiecke MA, Krivchenia EL et al (1996) Parental decisions to terminate/continue following abnormal cytogenetic prenatal diagnosis: “What” is still more important than “When”. Am J Med Genet 61:353–355CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Beeson D, Doksom T (2001) Family values and resistance to genetic counseling. In: Hoffmaster B (ed) Bioethics in context. Temple, Philadelphia Beeson D, Doksom T (2001) Family values and resistance to genetic counseling. In: Hoffmaster B (ed) Bioethics in context. Temple, Philadelphia
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Middleton A, Hewison J, Mueller RF (2001) Prenatal diagnosis for inherited deafness—what is the potential demand? J Genet Couns 10:121–131CrossRefPubMed Middleton A, Hewison J, Mueller RF (2001) Prenatal diagnosis for inherited deafness—what is the potential demand? J Genet Couns 10:121–131CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Gooding HC, Boehm K, Thompson RE et al (2002) Issues surrounding prenatal testing for achondroplasia. Prenat Diagn 22:933–940CrossRefPubMed Gooding HC, Boehm K, Thompson RE et al (2002) Issues surrounding prenatal testing for achondroplasia. Prenat Diagn 22:933–940CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Callahan D (1986) How technology is reframing the abortion debate. Hastings Cent Rep 16:33–42CrossRefPubMed Callahan D (1986) How technology is reframing the abortion debate. Hastings Cent Rep 16:33–42CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Harris J (1985) The value of life. Routledge, London Harris J (1985) The value of life. Routledge, London
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Tooley M (1972) Abortion and infanticide. Philos Public Aff 2:37–65 Tooley M (1972) Abortion and infanticide. Philos Public Aff 2:37–65
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Jones DG (1998) Anatomy and ethics: an exploration of some ethical dimensions of contemporary anatomy. Clin Anat 11:100–105CrossRefPubMed Jones DG (1998) Anatomy and ethics: an exploration of some ethical dimensions of contemporary anatomy. Clin Anat 11:100–105CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Finnis J (1994) Abortion and health care ethics. In: Gillon R (ed) Principles of health care ethics. John Wiley, Chichester Finnis J (1994) Abortion and health care ethics. In: Gillon R (ed) Principles of health care ethics. John Wiley, Chichester
15.
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Warnock Report (1984) Report of the committee of inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology, cmnd 9314. HMSO, London Warnock Report (1984) Report of the committee of inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology, cmnd 9314. HMSO, London
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Glover J (1989) Fertility and the family: the Glover report on reproductive technologies to the European commission. Fourth Estate, London Glover J (1989) Fertility and the family: the Glover report on reproductive technologies to the European commission. Fourth Estate, London
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Lockwood M (1988) Warnock versus Powell (and Harradine): when does potentiality count? Bioethics 2:187–213CrossRefPubMed Lockwood M (1988) Warnock versus Powell (and Harradine): when does potentiality count? Bioethics 2:187–213CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Thornhill AR, de Die-Smulders CE, Geraedts JP et al (2005) ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). Hum Reprod 20:35–48CrossRefPubMed Thornhill AR, de Die-Smulders CE, Geraedts JP et al (2005) ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). Hum Reprod 20:35–48CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Gunning J (1999) Legal regulation concerning preimplantation diagnosis. In: Hildt E, Graumann S (eds) Genetics in human reproduction. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 261–272 Gunning J (1999) Legal regulation concerning preimplantation diagnosis. In: Hildt E, Graumann S (eds) Genetics in human reproduction. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 261–272
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Watt H (2004) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: choosing the “Good Enough” child. Health Care Anal 12:51–60CrossRefPubMed Watt H (2004) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: choosing the “Good Enough” child. Health Care Anal 12:51–60CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Katz MG, Fitzgerald L, Bankier A et al (2002) Issues and concerns of couples presenting for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Prenat Diagn 22:1117–1122CrossRefPubMed Katz MG, Fitzgerald L, Bankier A et al (2002) Issues and concerns of couples presenting for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Prenat Diagn 22:1117–1122CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Kastrinos F, Stoffel EM, Balmaña J et al (2007) Attitudes toward prenatal genetic testing in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Am J Gastroenterol 102:1284–1290CrossRefPubMed Kastrinos F, Stoffel EM, Balmaña J et al (2007) Attitudes toward prenatal genetic testing in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Am J Gastroenterol 102:1284–1290CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Glover J (1992) Future people, disability, and screening. In: Laslett P, Fishkin J (eds) Justice between age groups and generations. Yale University Press, New Haven Glover J (1992) Future people, disability, and screening. In: Laslett P, Fishkin J (eds) Justice between age groups and generations. Yale University Press, New Haven
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Shakespeare T (1998) Choices and rights: eugenics, genetics and disability equality. Disabil Soc 13:665–681CrossRefPubMed Shakespeare T (1998) Choices and rights: eugenics, genetics and disability equality. Disabil Soc 13:665–681CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S, Amos A (1998) Drawing the line: an analysis of lay people’s discussions about the new genetics. Public Underst Sci 7:113–133CrossRefPubMed Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S, Amos A (1998) Drawing the line: an analysis of lay people’s discussions about the new genetics. Public Underst Sci 7:113–133CrossRefPubMed
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Parens E, Asch A (1999) The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing. Hastings Cent Rep 29(5):S1–S22CrossRefPubMed Parens E, Asch A (1999) The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing. Hastings Cent Rep 29(5):S1–S22CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Wertz DC, Knoppers BM (2002) Serious genetic disorders: can or should they be defined? Am J Med Genet 108:29–35CrossRefPubMed Wertz DC, Knoppers BM (2002) Serious genetic disorders: can or should they be defined? Am J Med Genet 108:29–35CrossRefPubMed
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Post SG (1992) Huntington’s disease: prenatal screening for late onset disease. J Med Ethics 18:75–78CrossRefPubMed Post SG (1992) Huntington’s disease: prenatal screening for late onset disease. J Med Ethics 18:75–78CrossRefPubMed
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Decruyenaere M, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A et al (2007) The complexity of reproductive decision-making in asymptomatic carriers of the Huntington mutation. Eur J Hum Genet 15:453–462CrossRefPubMed Decruyenaere M, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A et al (2007) The complexity of reproductive decision-making in asymptomatic carriers of the Huntington mutation. Eur J Hum Genet 15:453–462CrossRefPubMed
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Roberts C, Franklin S (2004) Experiencing new forms of genetic choice: Findings from an ethnographic study of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Fertil 7:285–293CrossRef Roberts C, Franklin S (2004) Experiencing new forms of genetic choice: Findings from an ethnographic study of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Fertil 7:285–293CrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Krahn T (2000) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: does age of onset matter (anymore)? Med Health Care Philos 12:187–202CrossRef Krahn T (2000) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: does age of onset matter (anymore)? Med Health Care Philos 12:187–202CrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Robertson JA (2003) Extending preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the ethical debate ethical issues in new uses of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 18:465–471CrossRefPubMed Robertson JA (2003) Extending preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the ethical debate ethical issues in new uses of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 18:465–471CrossRefPubMed
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Melville A (2008) Patients’ attitudes to the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for familial adenomatous polyposis. MSc Dissertation, University of Manchester Melville A (2008) Patients’ attitudes to the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for familial adenomatous polyposis. MSc Dissertation, University of Manchester
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Musgrave H (2008) Patients’ attitudes to the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. MSc Dissertation, University of Manchester Musgrave H (2008) Patients’ attitudes to the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. MSc Dissertation, University of Manchester
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Evans G, Baildam A, Brain A et al (2009) Risk reducing mastectomy: outcomes in 10 European Centres. J Med Genet 46:254–258CrossRefPubMed Evans G, Baildam A, Brain A et al (2009) Risk reducing mastectomy: outcomes in 10 European Centres. J Med Genet 46:254–258CrossRefPubMed
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Metcalfe KA, Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Lubinski J et al, The Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group (2008) International variation in rates of uptake of preventive options in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Int J Cancer 122:2017–2022 Metcalfe KA, Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Lubinski J et al, The Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group (2008) International variation in rates of uptake of preventive options in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Int J Cancer 122:2017–2022
45.
Zurück zum Zitat de Wert G (1998) Ethics of predictive DNA-testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Patient Educ Couns 35:43–52CrossRefPubMed de Wert G (1998) Ethics of predictive DNA-testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Patient Educ Couns 35:43–52CrossRefPubMed
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Menon U, Harper J, Sharma A et al (2007) Views of BRCA gene mutation carriers on preimplantation genetic diagnosis as a reproductive option for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Hum Reprod 22:1573–1577CrossRefPubMed Menon U, Harper J, Sharma A et al (2007) Views of BRCA gene mutation carriers on preimplantation genetic diagnosis as a reproductive option for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Hum Reprod 22:1573–1577CrossRefPubMed
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Staton AD, Kurian AW, Cobb K et al (2008) Cancer risk reduction and reproductive concerns in female BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Fam Cancer 7:179–186CrossRefPubMed Staton AD, Kurian AW, Cobb K et al (2008) Cancer risk reduction and reproductive concerns in female BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Fam Cancer 7:179–186CrossRefPubMed
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Quinn G, Vadaparampil S, Wilson C et al (2009) Attitudes of high-risk women toward preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 91:2361–2368CrossRefPubMed Quinn G, Vadaparampil S, Wilson C et al (2009) Attitudes of high-risk women toward preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 91:2361–2368CrossRefPubMed
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Fortuny D, Balmaña J, Graña B et al (2009) Opinion about reproductive decision making among individuals undergoing BRCA1/2 genetic testing in a multicentre Spanish cohort. Hum Reprod 24:1000–1006CrossRefPubMed Fortuny D, Balmaña J, Graña B et al (2009) Opinion about reproductive decision making among individuals undergoing BRCA1/2 genetic testing in a multicentre Spanish cohort. Hum Reprod 24:1000–1006CrossRefPubMed
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Williams C, Ehrich K, Farsides B et al (2007) Facilitating choice, framing choice: staff views on widening the scope of preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the UK. Socl Sci Med 65:1094–1105CrossRef Williams C, Ehrich K, Farsides B et al (2007) Facilitating choice, framing choice: staff views on widening the scope of preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the UK. Socl Sci Med 65:1094–1105CrossRef
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Scott R, Williams C, Ehrich K et al (2007) The appropriate extent of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis: health professionals’ and scientists’ views on the requirement for a significant risk of a serious genetic condition. Med Law Rev 15:320–356CrossRefPubMed Scott R, Williams C, Ehrich K et al (2007) The appropriate extent of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis: health professionals’ and scientists’ views on the requirement for a significant risk of a serious genetic condition. Med Law Rev 15:320–356CrossRefPubMed
52.
Zurück zum Zitat International Huntington Association and World Federation of Neurology Research Group on Huntington’s disease (1994) Guidelines for the molecular genetics predictive test in Huntington’s disease. J Med Genet 31:555–559CrossRef International Huntington Association and World Federation of Neurology Research Group on Huntington’s disease (1994) Guidelines for the molecular genetics predictive test in Huntington’s disease. J Med Genet 31:555–559CrossRef
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Bloch M, Hayden MR (1990) Opinion: predictive testing for Huntington disease in childhood: challenges and implications. Am J Hum Genet 46:1–4PubMed Bloch M, Hayden MR (1990) Opinion: predictive testing for Huntington disease in childhood: challenges and implications. Am J Hum Genet 46:1–4PubMed
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Working Party of the Clinical Genetics Society (1994) Report on the genetic testing of children. J Med Genet 31:785–797CrossRef Working Party of the Clinical Genetics Society (1994) Report on the genetic testing of children. J Med Genet 31:785–797CrossRef
55.
Zurück zum Zitat The American Society of Human Genetics Board of Directors, The American College of Medical Genetics Board of Directors (1995) Points to consider: ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. Am J Hum Genet 57:1233–1241 The American Society of Human Genetics Board of Directors, The American College of Medical Genetics Board of Directors (1995) Points to consider: ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. Am J Hum Genet 57:1233–1241
56.
Zurück zum Zitat American College of Obstetricians, Gynecologists (2008) Committee opinion no. 410: ethical issues in genetic testing. Obstet Gynecol 111:1495–1502 American College of Obstetricians, Gynecologists (2008) Committee opinion no. 410: ethical issues in genetic testing. Obstet Gynecol 111:1495–1502
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Feinberg J (1980) The child’s right to an open future. In: Aiken W, La Fallette H (eds) Whose child? Children’s rights, parental authority and state power. Littlefield Adams, Totowa Feinberg J (1980) The child’s right to an open future. In: Aiken W, La Fallette H (eds) Whose child? Children’s rights, parental authority and state power. Littlefield Adams, Totowa
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Davis DS (1997) Genetic dilemmas and the child’s right to an open future. Hastings Cent Rep 27:7–15PubMed Davis DS (1997) Genetic dilemmas and the child’s right to an open future. Hastings Cent Rep 27:7–15PubMed
59.
Zurück zum Zitat Thornhill AR, de Die-Smulders CE, Geraedts JP et al (2005) ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). Hum Reprod 20:35–48CrossRefPubMed Thornhill AR, de Die-Smulders CE, Geraedts JP et al (2005) ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). Hum Reprod 20:35–48CrossRefPubMed
61.
Zurück zum Zitat Goossens V, Harton G, Moutou C et al. (2008) ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection VIII: cycles from January to December 2005 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2006 Hum. Reprod 23:2629–2645 Supplementary Table IVc: List of indications under “others” for monogenic diseases with PCR, data VIII http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/data/den238/DC1/1 cited 06/06/09 Goossens V, Harton G, Moutou C et al. (2008) ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection VIII: cycles from January to December 2005 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2006 Hum. Reprod 23:2629–2645 Supplementary Table IVc: List of indications under “others” for monogenic diseases with PCR, data VIII http://​humrep.​oxfordjournals.​org/​cgi/​data/​den238/​DC1/​1 cited 06/06/09
63.
Zurück zum Zitat Clarke A (1991) Is non-directive genetic counselling possible? Lancet 335:1145–1147CrossRef Clarke A (1991) Is non-directive genetic counselling possible? Lancet 335:1145–1147CrossRef
64.
Zurück zum Zitat Sorenson JR (1993) Genetic counseling: values that have mattered. In: Bartels DM, LeRoy BS, Caplan AL (eds) Prescribing our future. Aldine de Gruyter, New York Sorenson JR (1993) Genetic counseling: values that have mattered. In: Bartels DM, LeRoy BS, Caplan AL (eds) Prescribing our future. Aldine de Gruyter, New York
65.
Zurück zum Zitat Resta RG (1997) Eugenics and nondirectiveness in genetic counseling. J Genet Couns 6:255–258CrossRefPubMed Resta RG (1997) Eugenics and nondirectiveness in genetic counseling. J Genet Couns 6:255–258CrossRefPubMed
66.
Zurück zum Zitat Kessler S (1997) Psychological aspects of genetic counseling. XI. Nondirectiveness revisited. Am J Med Genet 72:164–171CrossRefPubMed Kessler S (1997) Psychological aspects of genetic counseling. XI. Nondirectiveness revisited. Am J Med Genet 72:164–171CrossRefPubMed
67.
Zurück zum Zitat American Society of Human Genetics Ad Hoc Committee on Genetic Counseling (1975) Genetic counseling. Am J Hum Genet 27:240–242 American Society of Human Genetics Ad Hoc Committee on Genetic Counseling (1975) Genetic counseling. Am J Hum Genet 27:240–242
68.
Zurück zum Zitat Veatch RM (1972) Models for ethical medicine in a revolutionary age. What physician–patient roles foster the most ethical relationship? Hastings Cent Rep 2:5–7PubMed Veatch RM (1972) Models for ethical medicine in a revolutionary age. What physician–patient roles foster the most ethical relationship? Hastings Cent Rep 2:5–7PubMed
69.
Zurück zum Zitat Parker M (2001) Genetics and the interpersonal elaboration of ethics. Theor Med 22:451–459CrossRef Parker M (2001) Genetics and the interpersonal elaboration of ethics. Theor Med 22:451–459CrossRef
70.
Zurück zum Zitat Lehmann LS, Weeks JC, Klar N et al (2000) Disclosure of familial genetic information: perceptions of the duty to inform. Am J Med 109:705–711CrossRefPubMed Lehmann LS, Weeks JC, Klar N et al (2000) Disclosure of familial genetic information: perceptions of the duty to inform. Am J Med 109:705–711CrossRefPubMed
71.
Zurück zum Zitat Claes E, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A et al (2003) Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients. Am J Med Genet 116A:11–19CrossRefPubMed Claes E, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A et al (2003) Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients. Am J Med Genet 116A:11–19CrossRefPubMed
72.
Zurück zum Zitat Hallowell N, Foster C, Eeles R et al (2003) Balancing autonomy and responsibility: the ethics of generating and disclosing genetic information. J Med Ethics 29:74–83CrossRefPubMed Hallowell N, Foster C, Eeles R et al (2003) Balancing autonomy and responsibility: the ethics of generating and disclosing genetic information. J Med Ethics 29:74–83CrossRefPubMed
73.
Zurück zum Zitat Plantinga L, Natowicz MR, Kass NE et al (2003) Disclosure, confidentiality and families: experiences and attitudes of those with genetic versus nongenetic medical conditions. Am J Med Genet 119C:51–59CrossRefPubMed Plantinga L, Natowicz MR, Kass NE et al (2003) Disclosure, confidentiality and families: experiences and attitudes of those with genetic versus nongenetic medical conditions. Am J Med Genet 119C:51–59CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
A clinical perspective on ethical arguments around prenatal diagnosis and preimplantation genetic diagnosis for later onset inherited cancer predispositions
verfasst von
Tara Clancy
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2010
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Familial Cancer / Ausgabe 1/2010
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-009-9271-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2010

Familial Cancer 1/2010 Zur Ausgabe

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.